biofuels are bad?

biofuels are bad?
Today's news report (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114055974) stating the likelihood of biofuel laws actually causing higher levels of global warming or climate change is just one more example of how we humans still haven't managed to get a grip on managing our occupancy of this planet.

Specifically, we continue to consume disproportionately compared to our ability to renew and replenish. Haven't we learned anything from over-hunting, over-fishing, over-building... and oh yea, over polluting?

My blog post on Jan 27th speaks to much of this, as it relates to biofuels production/usage in Bolivia. Notably, I make mention of deforestation concerns as well as opportunity costs.

So lets continue this conversation in light of today's revelation that current methods of "accounting" for carbon emissions do not paint a complete picture. Gee, there's a f-ing surprise!

In general, we as humans lack balance. Not that we don't have the ability to find balance, but by nature, we take actions based on self-gratification and personal gain rather than global, or even regional, balance. And this inevitably takes the form of monetary pursuits.

Does today's report on "carbon accounting" mean we shouldn't be using biofuels? OF COURSE NOT! But no doubt, the argument will be made that "biofuels are bad", and we should simply continue down our path of petroleum infrastructure.

As I am well know for saying... ENOUGH!

EXTREMES, WHETHER REFERRING TO THE STATUS QUO OR THE LATEST AND GREATEST, ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO SUSTAINABILITY. ACTIONS OR POLICIES DON'T HAVE TO BE EITHER ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. THEY NEED TO BE BALANCED TO REPRESENT CURRENT CONDITIONS AND LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY.

Referring back to my very first blog post Nov 22, '08, this is called OPTIMIZATION.

Further, while economic growth is a component of well-being, it is not synonymous with well-being. We don't NEED to maximize economic growth/development to be better off. In fact, massive economic growth often comes at great cost.

Here's an eye-opener.... environmental stewardship is a component of economic development. It's not the only component, but it is a significant piece of the puzzle because... it represents the space in which we all live! Without taking care of our space, we cannot live. Duh!

Petroleum isn't bad. Fossil fuels aren't bad. Biofuels aren't bad. Producing and/or consuming any of these isn't bad.

But over-production of any, driven by over-consumption of all, IS bad.

You see, attempting to satisfy ALL of our needs, whatever they may be, from ONE source IS a bad idea. And wrecking any particular ecosystem in attempting to do so IS REALLY BAD. This is especially evident when considering the destructive nature of typical economic development.

When human motivation is driven solely by monetary gain, we tend to overlook the ancillary or downstream effects of our actions. We then try to “fix” things with “affirmative action” initiatives (whether it's to rectify racial, social or economic inequalities) in hopes our reactive policies counterbalance our lack of foresight.

Truth: They rarely, if ever, do.

This is of course the paradox of humanity: our growth, our desire for advancement and development, may ultimately bring our demise.

conversations on health insurance and "health care" system reform- try a dose of common sense

each state mandates drivers have liability insurance coverage on their car. additionally, lenders require full coverage if they hold a lien on a vehicle. but it's our choice of whether or not we even want to buy insurance based on our decision to be a driver, and/or take a loan to buy a car. if we don't drive, or don't buy cars we can't afford to pay in full up front, we aren't forced to buy one insurance or the other.

when we buy a house, lenders require we pay PMI if we don't have 20% equity. but again, it's our choice of whether or not to pay PMI simply by renting instead of buying, or waiting until we have 20% down payment before taking the plunge. it's all our choice.

basically, we pay “extra” for these privileges.

but can our elected leaders really require/force/mandate us to buy health insurance just for “existing” in this country? just to "live"? requiring health insurance? is it such a privilege to be born in the USA?

come on, really... what will requiring health insurance truly accomplish?

plain and simple, someone's going to get rich over this. guess who? that's right... the insurance companies! big business. the "financial" world. can you say AIG, banks, investment houses and stock exchanges.

the focus has been shifted away from promoting the healthy well-being of our nation, and put squarely on simply making money, (which, by the way, is a far cry from truly becoming wealthy or even amassing wealth).

now for a dose of common sense...

the concept of “health insurance” is bs. we don't buy “health” insurance to keep us healthy, we buy “medical insurance” to treat us when something goes wrong.

and the way we live, something is bound to go wrong!

so here's the rub... with all this talk about reforming the "health care system"... no one is addressing the real issue, OUR HEALTH! they're just talking about how to pay for the EVER INCREASING MEDICAL COSTS of taking care of people who can't/don't/won't take care of themselves.

now, that's easy for me to say. i'm relatively healthy. i don't suffer from any chronic medical ills. i don't live a "dangerous" lifestyle. i don't do drugs, drink heavily, or hang out with those who do. i live in a “clean” area away from toxic dumps/landfills, factories and high-voltage power lines. living choices make a huge impact on a persons "health" and the likelihood of needed medical care.

the issues we need to solve aren't whether or not any person has "health insurance", or even “medical insurance”, the issues we need to solve are:

(1) the insane costs of "medical care"
(2) the insanely crap food in our stores and poor nutrition in our diets
(3) the insanely toxic levels of environmental pollution and contaminants
(4) the insane phobia(s) of "getting sick", and the over-dispensing of antibiotics
(5) the lack of real "diagnostics” by medical professionals who would rather throw pills at us which are marketed to them by companies engineering "fixes" to problems they caused in the first place
(6) the lack of knowledge, or desire for knowledge, of the general public as to personal responsibility for our own health

it is said insurance is shared risk. in reality, it's a profit driven business, based on legalized gambling, which aggregates a large pool of people and bets the money collected in premiums, once invested (wagered in the markets), will have a future value GREATER than any investment LOSSES and/or claim payouts.

and because it is a profit-driven corporation, it has no tolerance for financial losses... including payouts. in other words, it has no interest in PEOPLE'S best interest outside of the corporation's shareholders. so it relies on minimizing risk. for health insurance companies, this means convincing as many healthy people as possible to pay as much money in premiums as they are willing to tolerate in order to "fund" a portfolio of bets.

let's look at this from a healthy person's point of view...

every year i'll get a cold in the winter and maybe the flu for a week or so, but nurse myself with rest, OJ/vitamin c, soft kleenex, and maybe some aspirin if a headache gets really bad. i haven't been to the doctor in over 5 years, and then it was only for a shot of cortizone for a massive case of poison ivy (btw, i've mitigated my own risk of acquiring poison ivy since then by being more vigilant of where i enjoy my outdoor activities)!

consequently, my personal annual “health care” costs are pretty low, and basically limited to my nutrition and fitness decisions, personal hygiene, and watching where i romp through the woods.

but lets say i'm REQUIRED by law to buy health insurance.

now i have to shell out $xxx per month premium. what did that do? leaves less in my budget to afford natural, raw, organic, hormone/steroid/pesticide free food, other healthy living necessities and all of my other pursuits of life, liberty and happiness.

to minimize my monthly premium, i might choose a high deductible. what does this do? on top of paying a monthly premium and having less in my budget for healthy foods and living, it means IF if MUST go to the doctor for something, i end up paying for most, if not all of the bill.

lets use the poison ivy example...

say my premium is $80/month to get 80/20 coverage with a $2500 deductible, $30 co-pay (that was my actual cost last time i had health insurance). i pay 12 months of premiums ($960), then have an "urgent care" visit costing $630 ($200 for the doctor, $300 for the care center, $100 for the shot and $30 for the co-pay).

i pay the $30, and get a bill for my 20% portion of the deductible as my responsibility for the treatment ($120). this means on top of the $960 i paid all year for "coverage", i end up paying another $150 (120+30).

do the math... total out-of-pocket annual “health care” cost... $1110. hummmmm.... what the...?

DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM? NO, I DON'T THINK YOU DO!!!

THE PROBLEM IS THE $100 SHOT OF CORTIZONE COSTS $500 TO ADMINISTER!!!!!! Further, i'd like to know if the cortizone itself really costs $100? and THE BIGGEST PROBLEM OF ALL... I WAS WILLING TO PAY $1100 FOR IT!!!!! WTF????

i would have been better off, financially, paying the $600 out of pocket (or even NEGOTIATING with the provider for a lower cost!), and spending the remainder of the $1110 buying locally grown food, and other healthy living choices.

now lets look at the flip side... the sick, chronically ill, injured, whatever.

for instance, lets say i get injured in a car wreck on the way to get my cortizone shot. ironic! end up in the hospital while going to the hospital.

ok, so my ER visit gets expensive... say $5000 for a minor injury/overnight and $25000+ for something reeeeealy bad. with my insurance, i'm on the hook for the co-pay and deductible. i've paid $960 into a system for the privilege of paying another $2600 (2500 deduct + 100 ER co-pay). my "insurance" covers the other 2500 to 22500, right?

no... they NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT with the care provider for much less.

you see, hospitals jack up the cost of treatment because they know insurance companies will never pay the full amount. so hospital fee schedules are set HIGH ABOVE THE ACTUAL COST OF TREATMENT so by the time the insurance company settles, the true cost of care is hopefully covered. they are playing games with our money... and our medical/health care!

now lets talk about the seriously ill. I have great sympathy for people with circumstances beyond their control, especially through no fault of their own. but there's a difference between the guy who wrecks his health with drugs and alcohol vs the guy who has a god-given birth defect, degenerative genetic condition, (although it could be argued alcoholism and drug dependency are degenerative genetic conditions affecting the brain) or gets clobbered in a head-on car accident. regardless, choices are made, and everything we do (or happens to us) is preventable and/or treatable with the right attitude and a reasonable approach.

ok, so don't bitch about something unless you are willing to propose a solution, right?

i propose instead of requiring "health insurance", we require “healthy living insurance” for everyone. "healthy living insurance" should simply be an integrated component of things we already do:

(1) if you drive, your healthy living insurance should be part of your auto insurance, fuel costs or road usage
(2) if you are a student, your healthy living insurance should be part of your tuition
(3) if you are a worker, your healthy living insurance should be part of your job

"healthy living insurance" would be a used to help offset the costs of healthy living, and provide medical coverage for you and your dependents. a person would use the benefits to get discounts on fresh organic foods, nutritional supplements, fitness club memberships, exercise/fitness equipment, etc. and if god forbid you "come down" with something major (cancer) or minor (a cold), get in a wreck, or some other emergency, then "medical coverage" kicks in.

further, if you do all three of the above (drive, learn or work), you should have the choice of which one you want your insurance through- you can pick the cheapest if you want. or maybe the one with the best benefits. whatever. but if you don't drive, learn or work, then you are a “dependent” and your insurance should be part of your caretaker's coverage.

ok, we've addressed the issues, we've proposed a solution, and we've attempted to do it with a healthy dose of common sense.

is this a perfect plan? no way, nothing's perfect. is this the best solution, or even a good one? maybe not. but does it address the core of our problems? yes. does it focus on prevention vs reaction? yes. and does it promote PEOPLE'S control over their own health? absolutely!

there are three institutions in our world where corporate profit mentality has no business being involved: education, government and medical care. these are the areas of our lives where "no compromise" should be the rule. no one should be excluded, no one should be exempt and no one should ever be denied full participation. and in our capitalist democracy, it should all be done with a non-profit approach. the focus should be on public service and these institutions should break-even only. money in should equal money out based on audited budgets, fair pricing and reasonable operating expenses- including salaries.

let me say one final thing in terms of our government requiring we buy health insurance; i refuse to pay into a mandatory system, even under threat of fines and penalties, which FORCES ME TO "SHARE THE RISK" OF THE GUY WHO WON'T EXERCISE AND SITS ON THE COUCH ALL DAY EATING CORN CHIPS, DONUTS, CHICKEN NUGGETS AND SODAS WHILE PLAYING X BOX AND WATCHING AMERICAN IDOL.

kiss my ass... i'm moving off-shore!

we need to take control of our lives and our world. we need to take it back from career politicians and run-away corporate greed. and above all, we need to regain a sense of sustainable, healthy living.

first cost vs. lifecycle cost analysis

so i get an email today from an old friend who passes along some thoughts composed by someone i can only imagine is a kool-aid drinking, right wing nut job. after reading it a couple times, i felt compelled to draft a rebuttal. see the below exchange:


Original email
>
> I guess I must be on the wrong page on this "clunker" stuff ...
> A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
> A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
> The average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
>
> They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons per year.
> That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
> 5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.
> 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75 per bbl.
> So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion...to save $350 million.
> Hmmm! How good a deal was that?
>
> I'm thinking that they will probably do a great job with health care though!
>

And now it's my turn

Great analysis. But like most conservative and short term (instant gratification) mentality, the author is missing the point.

Lets talk about "first costs" vs "lifecycle costs", and do the same analysis. The basic premise for this analysis says your investment in the first 20% of your "project" (whatever it happens to be) determines the overall costs of the lifetime (remaining 80%) of the project.

For instance, by planning and spending wisely when constructing a house, building or other structure (efficient windows, roofing material, earth contact, insulation, appliances, hvac, smart grid circuits, geothermal/ground source, solar/battery/inverter, proper geographic positioning, good use of landscaping and shade, rainwater recovery, etc., etc., etc.), the overall costs of ownership in terms of utility, maintenance and other "operational" expenses are greatly reduced. Additionally, the resale value isn't dependent on market bubbles for increased valuation, but is inherently built into the property. And note, we haven't even talked about the GLOBAL implications such as reduced energy consumption necessitating less energy production and thus lower carbon emissions.

This mindset looks at overall sustainability of an effort and it's impact far beyond today's bank account balance and any short-term gain.

OK, now lets look at the clunker program in the same light.

The average age of the car being traded in was +/-14 years (http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/07/cash-for-clunker-trades-show-59-percent-fuel-economy-boost-hyundai-says.html)

So lets say the new, more efficient vehicle is going to be on the road for 14 years (not necessarily with the same owner, but at least for that many years.)

Note that one 42gal gallon barrel of crude oil yields 19.5 gallons of gasoline (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Oil-Gas-3147/Gallon-gas.htm)

So 19.5/42 = 46% yield.

Next, 14 years of better mileage * 224 million gallons = 3,136,000,000 gallons saved.

3,136,000,000 is 46% of what number? 6,817,391,304 (barrels)

At $75 per barrel = $511,304,347,800

So we spent 3 billion to save 511 billion over 14 years? Seems pretty good to me!!!

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THE ENVIRONMENTAL (LIFECYCLE) SAVINGS OF BURNING 3.136 BILLION LESS GALLONS IN TERMS OF CARBON EMISSIONS...

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THE ENVIRONMENTAL (LIFECYCLE) SAVINGS OF NOT HAVING TO FIND, EXTRACT AND REFINE 6.817 BILLION BARRELS...

NOT TO MENTION THE BENEFITS OF REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCY ON SAUDI ARABIA/FOREIGN OIL WHICH "CONSERVATIVES" SAY THEY ARE ALL ABOUT DOING!!!!

Now lets say that the buyers of the 700,000 new vehicles only keep them 5 years, then sell to someone who is still driving a clunker. But first, lets concede that 30% of these are taken out of commission due to wrecks and/or other salvage. This still takes ANOTHER 490,000 CLUNKERS OFF THE ROAD in 5 years! And since those 700,000 buyers will most likely need a replacement vehicle, you know they are buying one that gets at least as good or better MPG. Do the math, and that saves a bunch more gallons, barrels, emissions, and dependency on foreign oil!!!

HERE'S THE POINT...

TYPICAL SHORT TERM, NARROW MINDED AND INSTANT GRATIFICATION AMERICAN THINKING WILL KEEP US IN THE STONE AGES.

STOP A MOMENT AND CONSIDER SOMETHING BEYOND YOUR OWN DOORSTEP, AND YOU MIGHT SEE THAT THERE'S A WHOLE WORLD OUT THERE THAT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PASS ON (IN GOOD SHAPE!) TO THE NEXT GENERATION.

And as for the comment about healthcare... before anyone points fingers, you better take a look within as to WHY we are in the shape (physically) we're in. The concept of "healthcare" in the US is the biggest BS of the century! We need "well care" in terms of promoting nutrition, eating locally and in season, physical fitness, clean environment, lower consumption and pollution, and REAL education standards/values that enable sustainable, common sense living in terms of these considerations.

Get it?

ENOUGH! (again)

on a serious note... all the political fear tactics, spin, mis/disinformation and general bs about govt run "medical care/insurance", socialism, nazi/communist collaboration, elderly death planning/counseling, rationing and the care of our overall health... WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP!

first, we trust the govt to insure our banks and our most prize possession, MONEY... true?

we even trust the govt to manage our money (IRS and FED)... yes?

and we already trust the govt with our lives (EPA, armed forces FEMA, and any number of other bureaucratic institutions), right?

so why won't we trust them with our health insurance?

in my mind, this question actually contains the answer...

"our health"!

this country, (our people and our leaders) are generally REACTIVE rather than PREVENTIVE. we, as a society, do not take responsibility for PREVENTING health problems, we simply deal with them when they show up... AND THAT TAKES A LOT OF MONEY IN OUR CAPITALIST ECONOMY.

further, the basic reason we shouldn't trust our govt to insure our health care is BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PLAN TO PROMOTE OUR WELLNESS.

all, AND I MEAN ALL of our health problems- as a culture- are environmental in nature. we are what we eat. we are products of where/how we live. we are direct results of our choices.

eat growth hormones, pesticides, too much animal protein and processed starches, yellow number 5, etc., and you've got a recipe for A HEALTH DISASTER. add this to sitting static in front of the video game box and you've got a society that has no hope of ever being "well".

ENOUGH!

in all the debate about "health care" NO ONE is talking about "WELLNESS CARE".

if anything, our govt needs to be spending time and money promoting values such as smart nutritional education and eating habits, high standards of physical activity and fitness, sourcing food locally, eating in season, and general sustainable practices.

why won't this happen?

the govt and the corporation (big ag and big pharma- nearly one in the same!) have too much invested in keeping us down, sick, and "middle class poor". we buy drugs, we work to death, and we sustain the financial elite; the "upper class"

class isn't a state of financial position... it is a state of PERCEPTION based on a set of values. if society values money, but you don't have much, you are seen as "low class".

BUT, if society values education, intelligence, nutrition, healthy living and being around like-mined people- and you are educated, smart, eat well, live well and have similar friends, THEN REGARDLESS OF YOUR FINANCIAL POSITION, YOU ARE HIGH CLASS!!!

as a race (the human race!) achievement cannot be measured in money. we have to be smarter than that.

achievement must be measured in longevity of our existence. and this is a function of smart decision on WELLNESS, not health care or even insurance.

you know the old saying, "an apple a day keeps the doctor away."?

well... what if it true! wouldn't it be a super simple way to take command of our lives? here's some news... it won't hurt to try!!! i don't believe there is a documented case where having an apple a day has ever caused anyone any harm.

we must take command of our lives, as a nation and as a planet. we need to promote sustainable agriculture in each region, sustainable water systems (both fresh water AND sewage treatment), physical fitness, set HIGH standards for educational studies and generally work together in raising everyone up to a higher level across the board.

no doubt greed, fear and ignorance will get in the way. and not everyone is born with the same advantages/disadvantages as everyone else. but values of hard work (mental and physical) for personal achievement must be brought to the front and put in front of corporate gain.

intelligence is a function of genetics. education is a function of desire. common sense is a function of life. regardless of where we come from, all are at our disposal.

parents MUST take responsibility for their offspring. teachers MUST take responsibility for their occupation. and each individual MUST be responsible for themselves.

call me a flaming liberal, a raging conservative, a heartless capitalist, a compassionate do-gooder, a ruthless no-gooder or a complete nut-job... I DON'T CARE.

just call me something, stand up for your decision (ie. GET OFF YOUR ASSES!), get mad and DO SOMETHING. study nutrition, start jogging/riding a bike/walking, play a sport, WHATEVER. inactivity, indecision, and complacency (all running a close second to money) are the root of all evil.

you can argue that we are a free country. and that we have the freedom to do whatever we want. i'll argue that if you do nothing, and you deserve what you get. period. i've had ENOUGH.... have you?

for our friends across the pond...

A blog posting, slightly off topic, yet always in the spirit of celebrating human development and making a positive impact on our world....

Today, sailinganarchy.com ran a story (see below) about Geoff Holt and his stunning efforts to not let his condition limit his horizons.

I think most everyone who knows me, knows my brother is a paraplegic. Born in 1969 with spina bifida, he's never given up or given in despite any of the odds. And I think EVERYONE who knows me, knows I'm an avid sailor.

As such, Geoff's efforts really tug at my heart strings.

I urge everyone to take a moment, log into http://www.greatbritons.ba.com/users/5525, and vote for Geoff, his family, his spirit, and his conviction to overcome the odds.

Peace! -sg


From http://www.sailinganarchy.com/index_page1.php :
Having become the first disabled person to sail single-handed around Great Britain in 2007, I’ve set myself a new challenge, to sail across the Atlantic in December 2009. I’ll be using a 60ft, custom-built, wheelchair accessible catamaran called Impossible Dream. I leave Lanzarote on December 10th and will be heading to Tortola in the British Virgin Islands which is where I the accident which put me in my wheelchair 25 years ago.

Can you help? I’ve just heard that British Airways have short listed me for their Great Britons Award. If I win, they will fly my wife and son out to the Caribbean so they will be there when I arrive so it means a lot to me. However, to win, I need votes. Could I ask all Sailing Anarchy readers to go here (http://www.greatbritons.ba.com/users/5525) and place a vote for me? I’m the only sailor in the competition and I’m currently in 2nd place out of 8 contestants. Unfortunately there are less than 5 days of voting left so there is a degree of urgency. If anyone is interested in following my Atlantic project, then please log on here and you will receive regular updates.

Thanks guys. Every vote counts so the more the merrier!

Geoff Holt

climate bill follow-up thoughts: please continue to research for yourself, stay informed and advocate for what you believe

Every coin has two sides. While climate legislation is an imperative of the environmental sustainability and stewardship revolution, there is no perfect fix for our global warming woes. Read up at e360 for insightful and intelligent analysis/commentary, and don't be afraid to voice your own opinion. I would urge everyone, however, in considering their position, to think in terms of "first costs" vs. "life cycle costs"- making a stronger investment up front always provides for an improved down-stream result.

This holds true with anything:

If you put $1000 in the bank and add $1,00 at regular intervals, and receive 10% compounded annually, your down-stream return is stronger than if you put $100 in the bank and only add $10 every now and again.

Similarly, if you build a house and spend a little extra on the best windows, rain-water capture/irrigation, insulation, radiant heat floors, instant hot-water and green roof, your down-stream return is greater in terms of reduced costs of ownership.

Enjoy...

http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2163

The Waxman-Markey Bill: A Good Start Or A Non-Starter?

As carbon cap-and-trade legislation works it way through Congress, the environmental community is intensely debating whether the Waxman-Markey bill is the best possible compromise or a fatally flawed initiative. Yale Environment 360 asked 11 prominent people in the environmental and energy fields for their views on this controversial legislation.

The bill is officially entitled “The American Clean Energy and Security Act,” but most people who follow this issue simply call it Waxman-Markey. Named for its sponsors — Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) — the legislation has been roundly criticized for doing too little or too much, but one thing is clear: No matter what form it finally takes, the bill is historic. For the first time, the U.S. government would cap and regulate emissions of carbon dioxide.

Given that CO2 is a byproduct of the process that drives the American economy — combusting fossil fuels — it is no wonder that the bill is controversial. Many opponents, particularly Republicans, say it is a grave error to place a ceiling and a price on carbon emissions, particularly at a time of economic crisis.

But even erstwhile allies in the environmental movement are split over the bill. Their disagreement is centered on the many compromises — including a weakening of emissions and renewable energy targets — that the bill’s sponsors were forced to make in order to win approval in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Yale Environment 360 asked environmentalists and energy experts to share their thoughts on the Waxman-Markey bill. A majority of the environmentalists said they supported the bill — despite its many flaws — because it represents the beginning of an effort to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. These supporters noted that many important pieces of U.S. environmental legislation began with modest steps that were later toughened by amendments. Supporters also said that passage of Waxman-Markey was vital if the U.S. hopes to lead the effort to ratify a global climate change treaty later this year in Copenhagen.

Opponents maintained, however, that Waxman-Markey has been irrevocably compromised. They contended the bill makes so many concessions to powerful industrial lobbies that it will do little to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The opponents also criticized a provision that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its recently acquired ability to administratively regulate CO2 emissions from coal plants. In the end, these critics conclude, it is better to start over and fight for a stronger bill than pass the current, watered-down version.

Here are their responses:


Angela Ledford, Program Director for U.S. Climate Action Network.
The Waxman-Markey bill offers the most important opportunity in generations to create a prosperous 21st century economy that protects us from a climate crisis. Only by improving and passing a bill will we get a framework for transitioning to a clean-energy future. The bill, as it stands, may not reduce global warming pollution as fast as science is telling us is prudent. When we add emission reductions in this proposed law to the promises of other countries, we fall far short of what we need to do globally. So let’s be clear about what this bill provides: It gives us a framework to build on, and puts us on the path to what science says we need. But it is only the beginning.

Congress will need to stand strong against the special interests that seek to weaken the bill and have the courage to entertain essential measures to strengthen it. It needs stronger requirements for renewable energy and energy efficiency; the EPA needs the authority to hold polluters accountable; and domestic and international investments are critical to transforming the global economy.

The U.S. tradition on environmental protection seems to dictate that the most difficult step is the first one. Whether it is clean water, clean air, or ozone depletion, we have never been able to pass a bill and walk away. We set the policy in place, fight for swift and stringent implementation, sue when we need to, and go back to Congress if we haven’t gotten it right. Global warming is no different. For over a decade, we’ve worked to get to this point in the legislative process. We cannot blow this moment. But we shouldn’t think for a second our job is done once the bill is passed. In some ways, we’re only just beginning.


Phil Radford, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA.
Representatives Waxman and Markey have played a crucial role in bringing global warming to the forefront of the Congressional agenda. And we believe in President Obama’s vision of clean energy jobs and not letting special interests dominate politics. But this bill falls short of that vision.

The science is clear: the United States and the developed world must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. This legislation at best provides a 4 to 7 percent cut below 1990 levels in that time frame, and it is likely to get worse in the Senate. While 4 percent is something, it’s like building a 4-foot levee in New Orleans as the waters rush in at 40 feet. Here’s a sampling of what the bill gives away:

1. The bill would not force polluters to cut their own pollution until more than a decade from now. Instead, they could buy “offsets,” paying a farmer who temporarily traps CO2 in the soil by not tilling it as much, rather than preventing pollution at the smokestack.

2. The Renewable Energy Standard requires less new clean energy than we will have without this bill passing.

3. The bill strips away some of the Clean Air Act authority to reduce coal plant pollution in new plants, as well as the EPA’s authority to regulate global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act.


The net result is that coal companies won’t need to cut their pollution, and the president will lose the power to regulate coal under the Clean Air Act, which could very likely cut global warming pollution as much as, or more, than this bill.

We are urging President Obama to confront the undue influence of corporate polluters by using his considerable executive authorities to ensure America’s plan to tackle global warming is based on science, and puts people above politics as usual.


Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he runs the blog, climate progress.org. He is a former acting assistant secretary of energy.
Only two questions really matter regarding the Waxman-Markey bill.

First, is it compatible with — indeed integral to — a national and international effort to keep global warming as close as possible to 2 degrees C?

Second, what would be the outcome if the bill failed?

The answer to the first question is absolutely “Yes.” While the bill is weaker than it should be, particularly its 2020 target, it mandates a 42 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. Building on the massive investment in clean energy in the economic stimulus, the bill completes the transition to a clean energy economy. It devotes some $15 billion a year to clean technology development and deployment. It would be the single greatest push toward an energy-efficient economy in U.S. history.

The bill directs substantial funds toward a global effort to stop tropical deforestation. While it theoretically authorizes up to 2 billion tons in offsets to be used in place of domestic emissions reductions, nowhere near that amount of offsets exists today, nor is there any reason to believe they ever will. If the nations of the world agree to adopt emissions targets, timetables, and strategies compatible with stabilization near 2 degrees C, then the international offsets market will remain relatively small and expensive — especially compared to the large pool of low-cost, domestic, clean-energy emissions reduction strategies.

As for the second question, failure to pass the bill would end any hope of stabilizing climate at anywhere near a 2-degree C increase. Serious U.S. action would be off the table for years, the effort to jumpstart the clean-energy economy in this country would stall, the international negotiating process would fall apart, and any chance of a deal with China would be dead. Warming of 5 degrees C or more by century’s end would be all but inevitable.

Waxman-Markey is the only game in town. Let’s work hard to improve it, but killing it would be an act of environmental suicide.


Denis Hayes, President of the Bullitt Foundation, board chairman of the American Solar Energy Society, and National Coordinator of the first Earth Day.
The bottom line in politics is always how you vote. If I were in Congress, I would hold my nose and vote for the Waxman-Markey bill.

What do I dislike about Waxman-Markey?

* It allows 2 billion tons of offsets a year. Trading “permits” is fine; trading “offsets” eventually will shred the law’s effectiveness. Offsets are hard to regulate and the international offset bubble is already growing rapidly.

* The bill’s goal for 2020 — the easiest reductions — is a wimpy 17 percent cut in carbon emissions below 2005 levels, which essentially guarantees that the world will pass some tragic climate tipping points. It gets tougher later, but I don’t care about easily abandoned promises to make really hard cuts by 2050. What matters is what we are willing to do today.

* The bill auctions only 15 percent of the carbon permits for now. It should auction 100 percent. A 100 percent auction would function as an efficient carbon tax, with the tax rate set each year by the market and revenues distributed through open public processes. The bill’s approach represents back-room politics that mostly favor the powerful polluters who have spent a fortune fighting against climate legislation.

* The bill awards 10 times as much money to speculative carbon capture and sequestration projects as to all green jobs training and aid to displaced workers, combined.


So why would I support it?

Henry Waxman and Ed Markey are green legislative heroes. They privately acknowledge the flaws in this bill, and they would make it much stronger if that were possible. They can also count votes.

Waxman-Markey’s flaws are huge but discrete, and they can be addressed in the years ahead. Meanwhile, we have to pass something to give the Obama Administration the necessary credibility to create global momentum before Copenhagen. Toward that end, Waxman-Markey is the only credible game in town.


Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth.
During last year’s campaign, then-Senator Obama articulated a bold vision for a clean energy future. He argued that green investments and cuts in pollution can strengthen our economy and create millions of jobs, bolster national security, and help avoid catastrophic climate-change impacts. Voters were persuaded and Obama won in a landslide.

Unfortunately, the bill now moving through Congress fails to live up to Obama’s vision. Special interests — including Big Oil, Dirty Coal, and Wall Street — continue to hold too much sway in the Energy and Commerce Committee from which this bill emerged. In exchange for voting for this bill, conservative Democrats demanded hundreds of billions of dollars worth of giveaways to their favorite campaign contributors.

The result is a bill that doesn’t bring about anywhere near the pollution reductions necessary to avoid cataclysmic warming. The bill’s targets fall far short of scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and even further below what’s needed to return atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to the safe level of 350 parts per million. The bill also makes it hard to achieve a global climate agreement by underfunding international adaptation and clean-energy deployment.

The bill creates giant, under-regulated carbon markets that will benefit Wall Street but not reliably reduce pollution. It eliminates Clean Air Act protections, undercutting the Obama administration’s ability to act. It contaminates carbon markets with “offsets” that will delay U.S. pollution reductions and are unlikely to result in intended reductions overseas.

What may be more relevant to people concerned about how to put bread on the table is that some analyses have the bill producing no more clean energy than business as usual for the next few decades. This means the millions of jobs we can create by transitioning to a clean energy economy won’t come from this bill.

David Jenkins
David Jenkins, Vice President for Government and Political Affairs, Republicans for Environmental Protection.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act is currently the only viable legislative vehicle for passing comprehensive climate legislation this year. As such, it needs to continue its journey through the legislative process. It is not a great bill, but it is better than doing nothing.

The integrity of this climate bill has already suffered a serious blow as a result of the parochial deal-making needed to just secure the support of Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Waxman and Markey made dramatic early concessions — giving away 85 percent of the emissions allowances in the near term, reducing reduction targets, and allowing offsets.

Those are serious concessions to secure a handful of committee votes on the Democrat side, and those concessions will embolden other lawmakers to demand their pound of flesh as the bill moves toward a floor vote. Also, by not involving climate-friendly Republicans in the drafting and initial horse-trading, the bill has not yet gained the level of bipartisan support needed to get it through the Senate — or to help sustain it over time should the bill become law.

A better, and more politically sustainable, cap-and-trade approach would be to auction off most of the emission allowances and return a large portion of the proceeds to the public to offset energy cost increases, thus generating nationwide public support for emission reductions. A revenue-neutral carbon-tax, as proposed by U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), would accomplish the same thing.

The Waxman-Markey bill is an imperfect product of the legislative sausage factory and contains plenty of unsavory political byproducts, but lawmakers — Republican and Democrat alike — should work constructively to improve and pass it. Every year that we fail to enact legislation to reduce carbon emissions, climate change becomes more difficult and costly to address. The responsible, and conservative, course is to act now.


Charles T. Drevna, President of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association.
Climate change is a complex public policy challenge that must be addressed with realistic, long-term strategies recognizing the vital role that all forms of energy — traditional, alternative and renewable — will play in maintaining our country’s economic strength and quality of life. The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association supports the advancement and deployment of new technologies that bring reliable, affordable, and clean supplies of domestic energy to consumers.

If federal climate change legislation is eventually adopted, we believe such legislation must set a realistic carbon reduction target without political preconceptions or punitive provisions, and allow the innovative nature of American businesses to achieve those goals through the most efficient means. It must protect impacted businesses and the existing jobs of their employees from competition with foreign companies whose countries do not limit carbon dioxide emissions. It must prevent mandating contradictory or redundant policies, and establish a single federal carbon constraint program that supersedes all other federal, state, and local statutes and programs. Lastly, it must not advantage or disadvantage one form of energy over another with respect to carbon constraints.

The Waxman-Markey legislation fails those tests in a number of ways. U.S. refiners already face stiff foreign competition and would be severely disadvantaged with higher compliance costs under the Waxman-Markey scheme. Indian businesses, for example, are building refineries specifically geared toward U.S. markets. Such foreign refiners, whose facility emissions are not addressed in the bill and whose operating costs are much lower, will gain a distinct advantage over American businesses in the marketplace. By ceding our stake in the markets to foreign businesses in locations where environmental standards are not nearly as stringent as those that already exist in the United States, global greenhouse gas emissions would likely increase.


Liz Martin Perera, Legislative Representative on Climate for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
This year presents a narrow window for putting a framework in place that can institute a hard cap on emissions, kick-start the clean-energy economy, and begin the international negotiation process. While the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill is not as strong as many environmentalists would have liked, it’s exactly what we need and represents a clear step forward for environmental policy.

Henry Waxman and Ed Markey did a masterful job getting this bill through a very tough Energy and Commerce Committee that includes climate science contrarians and members of Congress who are sympathetic to coal and oil interests. Now that the bill moves through other committees and to the House floor, we hope to defend, improve, and pass the legislation.

Obama and his climate team know they need to walk into the international climate negotiations in Denmark with domestic legislation in hand. Otherwise, the United States will have a much harder time convincing delegates that it’s ready to act.

The progress we’ve seen in Congress is due, in part, to leadership from the White House. Obama’s push to have the Environmental Protection Agency use its power to regulate heat-trapping emissions also is pressuring members of Congress to act.

The consensus among most advocacy groups is that we need to work to strengthen the bill and ultimately pass it, while defending against moves to weaken it from across the political spectrum. We also have to remember that it took many years to pass the Clean Air Act, which was later significantly strengthened through various amendments. This is probably the single best shot we’ll ever get at putting a cap on global warming pollution, and we need to take it.


Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Rainforest Action Network.
I wanted so much to support the Waxman-Markey climate bill. I cheered when Congressman Waxman became chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. And I believe it’s imperative we pass strong climate legislation this year.

But despite admirable incentives for hybrid and electric vehicles, improvements in efficiency, and some other initiatives, the current incarnation of the Waxman-Markey bill doesn’t do the job. For starters, it sets the wrong target: Scientists state that an atmospheric concentration of 350 parts per million of CO2 is the upper limit for a stable climate; this bill aims for 450. Moreover, although the international community is calling for cuts of 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, this bill aims for 4 percent.

The bill’s largest flaw, however, is the inclusion of 2 billion tons of carbon offsets annually. These offsets represent a massive loophole that will allow polluters to meet their carbon reduction obligations by paying someone else not to pollute, rather than reducing their own emissions. Experience shows that as much as two-thirds of the time offsets don’t work, particularly under current regulations in the agribusiness and forestry industries. A coal company could “offset” its pollution by paying a logging company to raze a rainforest for a palm plantation in Indonesia — destroying some of the most biodiverse ecosystems on earth, and releasing massive amounts of carbon. To succeed in the fight against climate change, we must reduce emissions from fossil fuels AND stop destroying rainforests.

On Nov. 10, 2008, soon after getting elected, President Obama gave his first speech on climate change. “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” he said. “Delay is no longer an option.” Full use of the offsets in the current climate bill would allow polluters to avoid any reductions in their emissions until 2026 — 17 years from today. Instead of settling for this bill, let’s keep fighting for change we can believe in.


Paul Hawken, Environmentalist, entrepreneur, journalist, and best-selling author.
Waxman-Markey is a landmark bill. To be clear it represents a direction, not a plan. But given American realpolitik, it is as good as anyone could have expected. For sure there are some fairly meaty bones thrown to Duke Energy and the coal industry for emissions and carbon sequestration, and there are other lobbyist accommodations. Who knows what will happen as it makes it way through Congress? But the bill brings us closer to European Union standards and in alignment with most of the rest of the developed world.

Critics who see it as lacking are right. Reducing U.S. carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 is insufficient. But legislation is not actually written in Congress; it is assembled there. One detects the fine hand of environmental and climate experts in the bill, not just big utilities. The provisions and language are accreted from people who have done the heavy lifting in unsung institutions and NGOs, and I for one am thrilled to see some of this work see the light of legislative day under the auspices of a president who will sign and support it vigorously.

My hope is that the bill will begin to form the basis of a more comprehensive energy strategy that will use physical instead of electoral metrics as the measure of validity, so that we can do away with coal, ethanol, and other money sinks. If I have a criticism, it is not with the overall bill but with the idea that this is a spending bill. It is an investment bill, and I wish we had a governmental accounting system that could distinguish between the two.


Michael Noble, Executive Director of Fresh Energy, a nonprofit promoting clean energy.
For two decades, my overarching commitment has been an American economy that doubles or triples in size by 2040 to 2050, while CO2 is reduced to 10 to 20 percent of emissions today. The Waxman-Markey bill strives to retain this central integrity, and for all the bill’s flaws, Fresh Energy joins the vast majority of clean energy groups determined to pass it in the House of Representatives this month.

Indeed, several provisions in the Waxman-Markey bill fall far short of what Obama wants: a cap on global warming emissions, with 100 percent permit auctions on day one, and the huge majority of revenues dedicated to protecting middle-class buying power.

However, as the Senate begins its work, one of its highest priorities must be to retain the hard-won authority of the EPA to regulate CO2 from coal-fired power plants under existing law. The current version of Waxman-Markey eliminates EPA’s regulatory authority over existing and proposed coal plants under the Clean Air Act. Over the past few years, the threat of regulation has prevented coal construction because risky schemes face finance barriers. Some 27 coal plants in America are currently seeking permits that would belch CO2 for 50 years.

If that coal surge takes place, we will have to de-carbonize electricity at a much steeper rate from 2020 to 2050, and the hole we will have to dig out of will be much deeper. As James Hansen has often said, to begin to fix the climate then will no longer be possible, since it’s barely still possible today.

With the deals and commitments already made, there may be no opportunity to fix Waxman-Markey in the House before passage. But this bill must be fixed in the Senate before it gets to the president’s desk.


Be smart. Be informed. Be engaged. But whatever you do, don't just let it be. And don't count on anyone else to do it for you. Peace. -sg

shifting our thinking about economic concepts

What is an economy? By definition, good old Webster tells us it is the arrangement or mode of operation of something, specifically a system of interaction and exchange. It is also said to be the structure or conditions of economic life in a country, area, or period.

OK, then... in the strictest sense, an economy is the structure of exchange for a given environment.

In our world, when talking about "the economy", this exchange is most often assumed to be trading money for "something" like goods, services, experiences, whatever. In other words, commodities.

But an interesting thing happened to me the other day. I was participating with some friends in our sailing club's annual work day and as conversations occur, my friend John and I began to talk about... gasp... Facebook! He and I had connected online a few weeks before, but this was our first in-person meeting since.

The conversation progressed to discussion of the enormous, nearly biblical, availability of information online, how we access that information, and how we are able to apply what we've learned.

He shared with me a story of his friend that had been having muscle and dexterity problems in his hands. The ailment was causing him to loose the ability to do any number of common hand movements without significant pain and/or discomfort. None the least of which was the inability to properly hold a golf club! While I'll be the first to admit golf isn't my cup of tea, I have been known to knock a couple buckets of balls around the range from time to time. Nonetheless, I concede that golf for some is serious (Tiger). And not being able to play well, in anything we enjoy, is a bummer.

So John explained how, as a physician, he goes straight to google these days and plugs in some search parameters.

In this particular case, his search yielded an obscure medical journal from some Asian country that not only outlined the exact ailment he was dealing with, but gave it a name and discussed possible treatment protocols that have had good success rates.

John, armed with this info, selected a treatment for his “patient”, implemented the treatment, and awaited the results.

Here's the kicker... the treatment was not medicinal or surgical. It was procedural. It was exercise and technique! The treatment was simply to hold the club in a different manner. And it worked.

Let's look at what really happened here; two people interacted, exchanged information, and implemented actions to solve a problem.

This IS an economy! Money didn't change hands, but a common "need" was met; John realized his need to practice his trade and help a friend, and the friend realized relief for his ailment. Both were satisfied.

As I listened to this story, I instantly recognized a concept I’d been studying recently- the idea of a resource based economy. An economy not based on monetary gain or achievement, but on satisfying needs as necessary to promote a fulfilling existence.

On a small scale, this seems to work well. But in a global sense, could we ever move from a commodity/consumption/acquisition based economy to a resource based economy?

This is something that only time will tell. But it’s a concept that can work, ultimately, if we wean ourselves off concepts such as monetary gain, suppression of underdeveloped cultures, pillaging of natural resources and general wasteful consumption.

How’s that for something to think about!

has all common sense left the building?

It’s no secret that I have been intensely angered by the financial meltdown. Not because of the loss of "money" as it were (as if any of it even exists!), but for the culmination of intense greed and self-serving behavior perpetrated by PEOPLE entrusted with the public welfare (and I don't mean welfare in terms of a government hand out, I mean welfare as in the general public good). It is my intention to share my views- right or wrong- in an effort to spur MEANINGFUL conversation and hopefully a deeper, real understanding of what's happening, why it's happening, and not for determining who's to blame, but rather, determining who should/will take responsibility in making sure our government is returned to the people, and out of the hands of well-paid corporate lobbyists acting only in the interest of their employer's balance sheet.

To understand money, banking, investment, capital markets, and the notion of "earning something for nothing" simply by trading debt, we really need to have a handle on how "money" is crated and why we think it has value. A very good resource for this is, "The Ascent of Money", a PBS expose detailing the history of the monetary system and why control of it is so important to those in power (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ascentofmoney/).

And before I go any further, I suggest one simple bit of advice to anyone reading this ... don't take my word for anything. Do your own research. Take time to look into our government (and I don't mean the presidency, I'm talking about the legislative branches- our representatives, and the judicial branch- our trusted, "unbiased" elders.), monetary system, the FED, Treasury/IRS, tax code (20 volumes, 16,000+ pages!!!), and every other cog in the machine which is ultimately "in charge" of our lives. Just remember, the only power any of these things have over us is that which we allow:

" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Think about these words. They are more important than just about any other concept in our country’s history.

Next, we need to have a good handle on the FED, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve) and what that organization is all about. The fed is a quasi-public/private FOR PROFIT corporation that has been allowed to not only control the supply of money, but remove any safe guards such as the gold standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard)

Take a good, hard look at a document put out by the FED called Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion: www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Modern_Money_Mechanics
This is a detailed explanation of how money is created.

And if you don't think gold is more valuable than cash (Federal Reserve Notes), look at the rise in popularity of "cash for gold" businesses. Over the last couple years (the apex of the financial/capital market implosion), and most recently exhibited by infomercials and traveling trade-shows, there has been a significant increase in businesses setting up shop to aggregate "unwanted" gold and other precious hard goods. Of course they are willing to give you cash for it! Cash, is literally worthless, but you can't very easily buy groceries or gas with gold. So these businesses are more than happy to take your tangible items of worth, transfer "money" to your bank account, let you withdraw "federal reserve notes" from your bank, and go buy your consumables (gasoline and such). In the end, you have no "money" AND no gold. There is a reason people are trying to get their hands on as much of this stuff as possible.

Onward, lets discuss our legislative representative’s roll in all of this. Much of what is happening now can be traced back to the end of 2000 including the Omnibus spending bill passed by the 106th congress (REPUBLICAN MAJORITY) and forced down the throat of then lame-duck Bill Clinton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

The "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" (H.R. 5660) was introduced in the House on December 14, 2000 by Rep. Thomas W. Ewing (R-IL) and cosponsored by Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-VA) Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) Rep. John J. LaFalce (D-NY) Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) and never debated in the House.

The companion bill (S.3283) was introduced in the Senate on December 15, 2000 (The last day before Christmas holiday) by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and cosponsored by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and never debated in the Senate.

Another look at legislation from this REPUBLICAN MAJORITY congress is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Financial_Services_Modernization_Act

Both of these repealed regulation originally designed to prevent financial monkey-business dating back to THE FIRST GREAT DEPRESSION! Regulation that was originally enacted to mitigate the risk of future depressions. The kind of oversight designed to prevent the exact type of CRAP we're dealing with now.

These bills are the genesis of the financial "engineering", wizardry and capital market manipulation that has allowed PEOPLE to take advantage of unregulated opportunities- specifically merging banking and insurance.

Be sure to take some time to look into Phil Gramm, the good-'ole-boy from Enron, um, I mean the great state of Bush, um, I mean Texas, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm) and find out which lobbyists/corporations contributed most to his opinions. FYI, Gramm was one of five co-sponsors of the companion bill to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000[5]. One provision of the bill is often referred to as the "Enron loophole" because some critics blame the provision for permitting the Enron scandal to occur.

OK, after all this, don't forget to take a look at the SEC, and their complete inability to function in the capacity for which it was intended. Think Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford... and Enron... and Worldcom... and...on and on.

Lastly, look at where the MONEY actually went: banks. Goldman Sachs, Deutsche, Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, etc, etc, etc. The recent consolidation of banking through bailouts has done nothing but bolster the DEBT, put more money in fewer people’s hands, and created a globally dominant economic force that if left unchecked, will drive further the divide between the haves and have-nots.

Now, some have suggested that the way to "fix" everything is to throw more money at it. Bailouts, tax breaks, whatever.

COME ON! "Buying" the perpetuation of a broken system is not the way to fix things.

And then trying to "fix" misallocated bailout funds by creating a new tax? A 90% tax on bonuses?

I don’t believe AIG made the right call in offering such extravagant retention, holiday and other bonuses, nor for their actually using bailout money to pay them, but this new tax is just as criminal!!! And unconstitutional.

How is taking away money going to do anything but hurt the PEOPLE who NEED it to support our monetary based society?

The fix isn’t to bailout and tax, but to foster a fundamental shift in socio-economic thinking. That greed isn’t good, and corporate profit isn’t the end-all, be-all of our existence.

And those who argue we might be heading towards socialism, bigger government, and other "dangerous" roads that will lead to the destruction of our society...

I say to you that our government has never been as big as it is when lobbyists push corporate agendas, constitutional rights are "suspended" or even stripped away, and more power is put in fewer people's hands specifically with judicial activism, no-bid contracts, and unilateral "secret" decisions that are made “for our own good”.

When we as a nation can allocate trillions of dollars and resources toward efforts in global domination of fossil fuel energy resources and suppression of autonomous societal development, but cannot find it within ourselves to protect, WITHOUT TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE A BUCK, endangered ecosystems, see that everyone on the planet has adequate food and clean water, and understand that over-consumption, pollution, burning heavy metals and EXCESSIVE carbon emissions are BAD, then there is something fundamentally wrong with our development and value system.

Just as important in all this is the fact that we as a society don't promote healthy living choices in terms of nutrition and exercise... unless we can make a buck at it.

Everyone worries about leaving too much debt to future generations. Well here's an eye opener... ALL MONEY IS DEBT! OUR GOVERNMENT BORROWS MONEY IT CAN NEVER REPAY... EVER.

THE SIMPLE FACT THAT INTEREST IS BEING CHARGED ON DEBT SOLIDIFIES THE FACT THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH "MONEY" TO EVER PAY BACK WHAT IS BORROWED.

HOW CAN YOU EVER PAY BACK MORE THAN WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED?

Oh, I forgot... go back and read Modern Money Mechanics. Money (debt) that is issued miraculously becomes "more" money (and consequently more debt!), when it is lent with zero gold standard and a 10% reserve requirement.

BTW, our income taxes currently do not even provide enough revenue to our treasury to cover the INTEREST on the national debt! Do the math. Think about that for a minute.

If you want some real reading, real information... real forward thinking, study up on the concept of “resource based economy”- an information, technology and knowledge based intelligent society where the pursuit of financial gain is no longer the primary driver, but rather the development of a global economy without debt. You can’t have a debtless society when people rely on “money” and “interest” Go ahead, google it and see what you come up with.

I'm not saying there is no wealth building with this system... I'm saying that everything is wealth building. And it’s done without the need to put anyone else down to get there.

Utopia? No... just people acting in the best interest of everyone else. Each of us needs all of us, and all of us need each of us. What a concept.

You argue that a corporation is a living, breathing, independent, legal entity. We always hear of, “Washington” did this, and “AIG” did that, “the church” says this.

Here’s another eye-opener… these institutions/corporations are made up of groups of PEOPLE. People do and say things. People guide organizations and institutions. People are responsible.

I submit that corporations are nothing but RULES MADE UP BY PEOPLE. And if we made the rules, we can change them.

Best business practices, standard accounting principles, tax code… it all needs an enema!

We need to open our eyes, get weaned off our cool-aid drinking, war-mongering, terror and fear-instilling, NASCAR watching, lottery playing, “American Dream” believing, subsidy driven, celebrity obsessed, American Idol-Dancing With The Stars-Biggest Loser- MTV watching, got-to-have-it-now, consumption based, unaccountable, irresponsible, dumbed-down barely smarter than a second grader, blinders-on society and GET WITH THE PROGRAM.

This country was built on principles of no taxation without representation, religious freedom, uncorrupted leadership, all created equal, and the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

It’s time to get pissed-off! We don’t have to take it. The “government”, the “corporation”, the “institution”… it’s all MAN MADE (and you too, gals!). Nothing happens without people doing something. We’d don’t have to take it, you know. It’s time to get pissed.

Peace.

fact and fiction; debunking the crap

I have a good friend, but he inevitably manages to perpetuate urban fiction and other tall tales via email forwarding. I know he means well, but he doesn't check his facts before passing things on. Overall, it is somewhat unsettling that this misleading crap actually gets written in the first place (disinformation), but even more so that people actually believe it!

Today, he sent me the recurring, "11 things kids don't learn in high school" supposedly spoken by Bill Gates in a speech to high school students. I immediately googled the topic and quickly found multiple reference on where it came from, that it first aired in 2001, and is nothing but horse shit.

Just go to http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/billgatesspeech.htm and see for yourself. And go to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2002191433_gates27m.html for a report on Gates' "real" speech regarding his view on today's high school education.

Lastly, for my rebuttal (because I never miss a chance to get on my soapbox), see below for the 11 things, and my thoughts in CAPS:

Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!
WE GET IN RETURN WHAT WE PUT OUT INTO THE WORLD, BUT DOING THINGS WITH THE SOLE EXPECTATION OF A RETURN IS HEARTLESS. TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT AND ACCEPT WHAT YOU RECEIVE IN RETURN. IF IT IS NOT WHAT YOU DESIRE, IT IS YOUR CHOICE AND FREE WILL AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU CONTINUE TO ASSOCIATE WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION.

Rule 2 : The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
WHEN YOUR SELF WORTH IS WRAPPED UP IN YOUR NET WORTH, YOU ARE A SLAVE TO MATERIAL POSSESSIONS, AND WILL NEVER BE FREE OR TRULY FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF NO MATTER WHAT THE WORLD CARES ABOUT OR EXPECTS.

Rule 3 : You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
IF MONETARY ACHIEVEMENT IS YOUR SOLE MEASURE, IT WON’T MATTER HOW MUCH OR LITTLE YOU MAKE, YOU WILL NEVER REALIZE ANY LEVEL OF INSIGHT. BUT WITH CONFIDENCE, FORESIGHT AND RECOGNITION OF OPPORTUNITY, YOU CAN START OUT AS ANYTHING YOU WANT, WITH ANYTHING YOU WANT.

Rule 4 : If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
BOTH YOUR TEACHER AND YOUR BOSS CAN BE MENTORS IF YOU ARE OPEN TO THE THINGS THEY PRESENT NO MATTER HOW THEY PRESENT THEM. REMEMBER THIS: TEACHERS ARE TAUGHT TO TEACH, BUT BOSSES ARE NOT TAUGHT TO BOSS. BTW, I HATE THE WORD BOSS... IT SOUNDS SO LOW BROW, AND REMINISCENT OF CHAIN GANGS, SWEAT SHOPS, COAL MINES AND NON-STIMULATING, MENIAL GRUNT WORK. IF YOU HAVE A "BOSS", YOU DESERVE A "BOSS". IF YOU HAVE CO-WORKERS, YOU WILL SUCCEED.

Rule 5 : Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.
FLIPPING BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE, ANTIBIOTIC, STEROID LACED “FOOD” PATTY AND SERVING IT TO PEOPLE FOR A PROFIT IS WELL BENEATH ANYONE’S DIGNITY. DO NOT ACCEPT THINGS JUST BECAUSE “THAT’S JUST THE WAY THINGS ARE”, EMBRACE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THE WORLD AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR AS MANY EARTHLINGS (HUMAN AND OTHERWISE) AS POSSIBLE. REMEMBER, WE DON'T OWN THIS PLANET, WE'RE SHARING IT WITH COUNTLESS OTHER SPECIES AND BEINGS, AND ONLY BORROWING IT FROM FUTURE GENERATIONS.

Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
MESSING UP IS NOT PROPRIETARY TO OFFSPRING. PARENTING IS AN OBLIGATION WITH FAR REACHING IMPLICATIONS. FAR TOO MANY SPERM AND EGG DONORS, WITH VERY LITTLE WORKING GRAY MATTER BETWEEN THEIR EARS, PERPETUATE THE WORST BEHAVIOR BY BEING BAD EXAMPLES FOR THEIR CHILDREN. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND LEARNING FROM MISTAKES IS CRITICAL IN ANYONE'S PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT POOR PARENTING HAS ON CHILDREN.

Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
YOUR PARENTS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE BY CHOICE, AND IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. IF THEY CHOOSE TO SUBSCRIBE TO A SOCIETY OF OVER-CONSUMPTION AND ACQUISITION OF MATERIAL POSSESSION, AND CHOOSE TO INSTILL THOSE VALUES IN THEIR CHILDREN, THEN THE CLOSET WILL ALWAYS BE CLUTTERED WITH "STUFF" WE DON'T NEED, AND WE WON’T HAVE ANY RAIN FORESTS LEFT TO SAVE.

Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
I’M PRETTY SURE I WAS TAUGHT THAT IF AT FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED, TRY, TRY AGAIN. HOWEVER, IN SCHOOLS, WE ARE DRILLED ON INDIVIDUAL LEARNING, YET IN THE “REAL WORLD” , WE MUST COLLABORATE WITH WORK GROUPS TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS. WE AREN’T TAUGHT HOW TO DO THIS, AND IT’S NO WONDER THE TYPICAL WORK ENVIRONMENT IS WROUGHT WITH BACK-STABBING, POLITICS AND OTHER COUNTER PRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. REALLY… THE SAND BOX IS BIG ENOUGH, AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF TOYS TO PLAY WITH. WE JUST NEED TO KEEP THE SAND CLEAN AND TAKE CARE OF THE BOX. ANYONE WHO PISSES IN THE CORNER RUINS IT FOR EVERYONE!


Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
AMERICAN LIFE IS STRUCTURED WITH A MAXIMUM OF TIME SPENT SUPPORTING UNENDING DEBT, AND MINIMUM TIME SPENT ENJOYING THE THINGS AND PLACES THE DEBT SUPPOSEDLY PROVIDED. TAKE A PAGE FROM THE CONCEPT OF EUROPEAN HOLIDAY… TWO MONTHS PER YEAR R&R. SAVVY?

Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU WORK AT OR OWN THE COFFEE SHOP!

Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
JUST LIVE BY THE GOLDEN RULE, YES?

PEACE.

bolivia on biodiesel... oblivious

A news report out this morning exemplified the state of bass-akwards thinking, perpetuated by bureaucratic and political stagnation (fueled most likely by fear of loss of power, money or other "stuff"), that is suppressing both environmental balance and long term global economic sustainability.

Specifically, Bolivia.

It is currently illegal to use oil from soybean crops as a feedstock for biodiesel. The reason? Because it's a food crop.

OK, fair enough. People have to eat. And don't forget soybeans aren't just for feeding people. They feed livestock... which feeds people. And so the food chain continues.

But, the food needs to be planted, grown, harvested, shipped, and ultimately "processed" as food for it to actually become consumable.

At what point does the inability or failure of the afore mentioned to be achieved (harvesting and shipping), do we have a driver for common sense to take over?

Ironically, the reason the crops cannot be harvested or shipped is because of the lack of FUEL available to run the necessary equipment. This fuel, historically and typically petroleum diesel, has been on a roller coaster ride in terms of both price and availability over the last year.

So rather than allowing a portion of the soy beans to be crushed, and the oil to be used as FUEL, the Bolivian authorities are willing to allow the crops to rot in the fields and become completely wasted.

I suppose this is par for the course. This comes from country that 30 years ago began devastating the global ecological balance by deforesting hundreds of thousands of acres of rain forest and jungles in order to clear the way for industrial mega-farms. If the fact that this area is no longer being utilized for its original, natural, and dare I say, "evolved" purpose of carbon scrubbing isn't bad enough, the fact that these renewable crops cannot be used to produce a clean burning renewable fuel is simply criminal.

Soy oil isn't the only thing to make biodiesel out of. But when its available, abundant and inexpensive, it makes darn good fuel.

Using a portion of a crop to sustain the crop is just common sense!

The alternative is simply this: If there is no fuel to power the equipment to harvest and ship the crop, and there is no alternative equipment that can do the job, then the crop stays in the field, rots, and NO ONE get it for food, fuel or any other purpose. BRILLIANT!

In fact, the environmental damage caused by this exercise is truly exponentially multiplied at this point because all of the investment that originally went into planting the crops in the first place (time, energy and money) produces absolutely no return on investment- a down stream effect that is truly immeasurable because we can only estimate:

(1) how much carbon scrubbing the original rain forests would have been naturally occurring,
(2) how much financial loss is realized by not bringing crops to market,
(3) how much petroleum fuel was consumed and exhausted in the clearing of the rain forests,
(4) how much petroleum fuel was consumed and exhausted in the planting of the crops,
(5) how much environmental (land, water, etc) damage is being done by use of pesticides, chemicals, erosion, etc.,
(6) how much ecosystem damage is caused by loss of balance among all the inhabitants (great and small) of the land,
(7) and on and on...

Common sense says this is beyond dumb. It's galactically stupid!

Bolivia, President Evo Morales, Vice Minister of Environmental Affairs Juan Pablo Ramos... open your eyes and get a clue! Arguing that using soy for biodiesel "cuts into food supplies and harms the environment", yet promoting/perpetuating destruction of rain forest/deforestation, land erosion, elimination of natural carbon scrubbers, use of pesticides, chemicals and petroleum based infrastructure is both ignorant, immoral and insane.

Either you're padding your pockets with kickbacks from industry, or you have a serious lack of usable gray matter between your ears.

Do the world a favor... rethink your positions and policy, or get out of the way of reasonable people with better, more sustainable ideas.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/01/27/bolivian_soybeans/

Exerpts from planet.betterplace.com conversations...

I recently befriended an entrepreneur, environmental activist and truly innovative person through my association with planet.betterplace.com- a California start-up trying to rewrite the book on adoption of EV culture.

My new friend, Jeannie, it turns out is quite the forward thinker. She operates on a grass-roots level, and can be found in Santa Cruz running a startup called The Scooter Stop (http://www.scooterstop.org/index.htm) promoting electric cycle/scooter transportation.

Here's a little bit of what we've discussed of late...

As for thoughts on consumer behavior, you'll agree there's no substitute for the sheepish nature of consumerism. We've proven time and again that we'll buy just about anything, junk or not, if everyone else is doing it AND if the seller makes it easy enough. Take a typical Ford, GM or Chrysler... given the right incentive, we happily purchase a vehicle with low buyer satisfaction rates, high recall and service bulletin rates, and poor safety ratings. I'm not saying I think it's smart, or even necessarily right, but it is what it is. Basically, no one likes being left behind. Truthfully, this is really part of the problem as well. In our quest for more stuff, we've leveraged our spending power to the brink of implosion (and some say we've already imploded). This behavior also fuels the race for cheap knock-offs, driving down the value, true quality and perceived quality of a group of products. Of course, this represents just the profit "p" of the triple bottom line. Consider the planet and people "p"s as well in terms of the environmental impact of the entire "materials economy"- see www.storyofstuff.com

Where does more, new stuff fit into the picture. I think it needs to be new "smart" stuff, where smart is defined by being initially designed and built knowing that it will ultimately be reabsorbed (recycled) into the system. Reduce, reuse, recycle, restore.

Where do free markets fit in to all this. They are the driver. But the evil byproducts, (namely greed and fear of losing our "stuff") cause acts of desperation. That desperate behavior, unfortunately, leads us down the path we've been traveling.

And free markets aren't necessarily allowed to freely operate in our society. Take government "incentives" (call it "welfare" if you want to put it in a negative light, and "tax credits or breaks" if you want to put it in a positive light") for instance... both of these cause markets to act irrationally, leading to an unsustainable feeding frenzy. Ethanol and biodiesel are prime examples. The production incentives drove investment in infrastructure, but not in sustainable process/operation. 90% of plants were built to operate on the easy money- corn or soy. Very few made any effort to invest in new feedstock technology. Now at the mercy of commodity markets, farmers (there's a whole other can of worms) went hog-wild on corn, when the price skyrocketed, plowing under soy fields to do so, leading to a shortage of soy, and causing the price of soy go up and out of control as well. Greed all around.

Another example, energy markets- California is all too familiar with the Enron fallout. Who wins? The trader. Who loses? The rest of us.

Free markets always go for the easy profits, the path of least resistance. That's their nature, and their shortfall. Greed. Now you can argue that this actually works, where the strong survive and the weak fall aside. But the wake, the contrail, the aftermath is the real measure of success/failure and whether or not something is really a "good" or "smart" idea. Just because we can do something doesn't necessarily necessitate that we should do that something.

The more people learn to act smart (taking initiative to research, learn and make smart decision rather than blindly accepting the status quo), take responsibility for those actions, and hold our elected leaders accountable for their part, the closer we'll come to having truly free markets.

Happy New Year

Welcome to 2009. It's gonna' be a great one!