greenmuncher

Open Letter to KDHE (Ks Dept of Health and Environment)

2010-07-26T18:43:00.002-05:00

KDHE... sustainably minded and environmentally conscious Kansans appreciate all your efforts in maintaining a watchful eye on our land, air and waterways.

One very important issue continues to be the Sunflower coal fire power plant project. And it remains an important issue because it hasn't gone away yet.

There is a laundry list of concerns hovering over this project, none the least of which is simply... no one has made any effort to make sure there will be sufficient supply of coal over the long-run to even justify the expense of building the plant.

In fact, recent studies of the Wyoming coal mines indicate the two largest sources have a max of only +/-20 years of available ore. The smaller of the two only has about 7 years left!

Jobs or no jobs, what good is a coal plant if there is not enough coal available for the projected life (+/-60 years) of the plant!?

Now, that's the rational, capitalist, business minded argument; focus on checking the impact with regards to the bottom line.

The other argument is more scientifically AND emotionally based. It has to do with the impact on ... get this... EARTHLINGS and THE PLANET. Yep, that's right... the environmental impact on our ecosystem.

Notice, I say 'earthlings', and not simply, 'humans'. This planet is home to many more creatures- great and small- than you and I.

Now, as 'earthlings', the idea of saving the planet is really a red herring. Seriously, this rock has been here long before we homo sapiens ever decided we were so very important. And it will be here long after.

In fact, it's rather ludicrous to think the plant really give a hoot, or differentiates between one parasite (inhabitant) or another.

BUT WE, AS HOMO SAPIANS, MUST CARE ABOUT WHAT CONDITION WE INFLICT UPON THIS PLANT BECAUSE WE ARE THE ONES (ALONG WITH THE OTHER EARTHLINGS) WHO MUST LIVE HERE.

Coal, coal ash, soot, particulates, sulfur, mercury... this stuff is BAD in excessive quantities. The EPA says so. Heck, it's bad in small quantities, too. It just gets really bad, for the entire ecosystem, when it's continually pumped into the sky and allowed to rain down on us all.

So we don't need any more. Regardless of big business, shareholder, and profits, THE STAKEHOLDERS OF THIS STATE, COUNTRY AND PLANET deserve better.

What we need is to focus on is efficiency, reduction in consumption and adopting new technologies such as clean energy generation and storage concepts.

So please, even if you aren't worried about greenhouse gases, or climate change... think about the bottom line of consumption- someday, every consumable thing runs out. Consider this when when making your ruling on the Sunflower coal consumption project.

free and open markets all around...

2010-01-30T14:12:00.028-06:00

in commenting about cap and trade on my facebook the other day, i posed a simple question wondering what exactly the end result of such a program would be- carbon reduction or capital market bubble creation?

my friend mike replied:

"Cap and Trade is a good concept, but can it work in the real world? who decides the total carbon amount? Who is grandfathered in? It is an incentive to reduce your carbon usage through technology by increasing the monetary compensation. Carbon commodity trading!! Will the government or free market control it?"

monetary compensation as an incentive to modify behavior? like giving my kid an allowance to clean her room?

so i thought i'd have a little fun with this one... my commentary:

i hear what you're saying mike; i suppose there are two ways to accomplish compliance- incentive or penalty.

for instance, speeding and other laws are enforced through penalty. but if we were to follow the logic of modifying behavior through monetary compensation... how about simply paying drivers not to speed?

of course, this would never happen in our world because speed limits are designed for public safety, right?

actually, i'd argue we've allowed speeding to be turned into a municipal revenue generating monster!

so following the logic any good "small-government/free open market/damn the public good/get mine now" proponent would employ... we should be wondering why cities and states get all the money from speeding!?

ok, just for fun, lets dive into this speeding thing...

why not open it up, and create a "street and driving market"? just like cap and trade will issue the original "permits" to polluters for free, simply issue all drivers permits to go fast! maybe all drivers should be allowed "x" number of speeding credits (the mechanics of this are unimportant for the current discussion; lets just say every driver gets "some").

this way the people who don't want/need to speed- even though they now have the right to speed because of the way the system is set up- can sell/trade their permits to others who want/need to go fast. the market pays them not to speed!

in turn, the "speeders" are in essence "pre-paying" the ability to go faster than posted limits.

and the seller of the permit, having been paid not to speed, won't speed because they no longer have the permit to do so... right?

come on... who's to say they won't speed at sometime in the future? do they go back to the market and buy a permit when they need to speed? and if they speed without a permit, who's to say they will actually get caught and be made to pay a penalty! do we need more speed traps and gestapo-like policing? or do we just trust people to do the right thing?

lets go one step further, and put the middle-man in place here; the broker of speeding permits. this guy matches speeders and non-speeders... for a fee. ah... economic growth!

how about this one... permits to kill people! we already permit for fishing and hunting wild animals to control population and generate revenue, why not permit human murder?

now you're speeding (because you have a permit), get in a wreck and kill someone... ok, simply use your speeding and murder credits to get out of it!

or maybe you truly hate someone, or are just really pissed off... buy a permit to knock-em off!

maybe you don't have the stomach for killing, so you SELL your permit to a professional assassin and have them do the dirty work. and lets say professional assassins buy up a bunch of killing credits. now they can legally operate their business! ah... more economic growth!

simply make it legal and generate revenue from it, rather than having it be illegal, and a financial burden on tax payers paying for prisons?

i can see all kinds of ways to make money on this thing; now the market supports brokers who specialize in bundling groups of assassins for, i don't know... hire by governments? special, military contractors? oh wait, we already have this!

of course, this is all absurd (or is it?)

if you really stop to think about it, aren't some things just too important for the common welfare? isn't our human health/well being too precious to allow it to be compromised by "permiting" something harmful, especially through profit seeking activity?

just like speed limits, carbon and other pollution regulations are designed for public safety (health and environment).

we don't get paid to drive the speed limit... why should there be a monetary incentive to do the right thing with pollution?

because it cuts into profits?

you see where i'm going with this. free markets and unregulated capitalism have limits on their ability to benefit the common welfare.

at some point, they become counter productive, reckless, bubble making implosion machines. and this typically happens at the detriment of society as a whole while benefiting a very select few. in other words, something/someone suffers great inequality or destruction.

examples of this go on and on: extinction of species, depletion of resources, loss of human life/quality of life, and greater spreads between socioeconomic status.

the bottom line... just because something can become a market, doesn't necessarily mean it should become a market.

therefore we use penalties- financial and physical (fines, fees, tariffs, surcharges, taxes, incarceration... and even death) for keeping things in check.

now lets look at cap and trade again...

just because a polluter no longer has enough credits to pollute, how do we know they won't continue to pollute?

just look at how enron was able to cook the books with off-balance sheet accounting! someone, somewhere is going to figure out a way to skirt the system, keep the "real" measure of emissions off the books, and be able to pollute/profit.

maybe they get caught, maybe not.

IN THE MEAN TIME... "WE" (THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD) SUFFER ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE INCLUDING HEALTH ISSUES... LEADING TO MEDICAL PROBLEMS... LEADING TO INCREASED MEDICAL COSTS... LEADING TO DENIAL OF CLAIMS... LEADING TO LOWER QUALITY OF LIFE... LEADING TO MEDICAL INSURANCE PROFITS... LEADING TO GREATER DIFFERENCES IN SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS... LEADING TO UNIMAGINABLE HUMAN SUFFERING, IMBALANCE AND INEQUALITY.

is this the world you want to live in?

lastly...

THE BIGGEST EMITTERS OF CARBON EMISSIONS ARE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THE MILITARY.

are these guys EXEMPT? or do they need carbon permits too? and if they have extra (print up a few more because they can!), should they be able to "sell" them on the open market?

if so, do these revenues REPLACE OR REDUCE some taxes, or become an additional "tax" on the people? or maybe the revenues are used to reduce the national debt or deficit?

or does this government activity in open markets actually aggravate the ability of markets to work freely, thus creating more of a bubble (just like fannie mae and freddie mac aggravated the housing bubble!)?

these are the tough questions and considerations we MUST address going forward in our global economy, global governance and global stewardship.

without dealing with these things, we are destined to repeat the failings every society from the beginning of time has eventually suffered... only worse, i fear.

all i know is cap and trade is a bad idea. anytime you put a for-profit motive above the common welfare, the welfare will suffer. period. peace.

asked and answered

2010-01-25T08:22:00.002-06:00

dear earth... can we learn to enjoy a good life, but still be good guests?

dear earthling... learning to live on the planet's dividends instead of its capital would be a good start.

peace.

keep asking the tough questions if you want real solutions

2010-01-23T14:04:00.002-06:00

the purpose of any organization is for the group to act as a whole on behalf of the participants' interests. organizations don't have souls or consciences... they have people- who supposedly possess these- leading and guiding the group toward the agreed upon goal.

so, if you take the financial profit motive out of the equation, does a corporate entity act the same?

in other words, regardless of the definition of earnings or ROI (return on investment), will non-profits employ the same tactics as for-profits in terms of self preservation and desire to perpetuate their existence to achieve their goals? will non-profits resort to questionable tactics, gray-area ethics, accounting tricks, lawyer driven litigation and lobbying legislation in order to make sure they maintain the ability to function?

and if the same tactics are employed by all organizations, is it just human nature... and does adding financial profit (monetary gain) into the equation lead to stronger, worse, more damaging and more often employed questionable tactics, gray-area ethics, accounting tricks, litigation and lobbying?

seriously, if a non-profit measures ROI in number of people "helped", will it stop at nothing to help as many people as possible?

the sad thing is, the vast majority of humans value their currency (and the associated perceived power) MORE than they value helping others or keeping our living environment worth living in.

how did this happen?

answering these questions, and understanding why we do the things we do, may go a long way towards helping resolve what rules, parameters and regulations ARE NECESSARY in the game of business... and life.

sayno2gmo

2010-01-22T23:28:00.003-06:00

and the original can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFXTEy13gIs

a wise man once said...

2010-01-22T16:02:00.005-06:00

He came looking for the answers
To some questions on his mind
Seeking truth and understanding
In the hope that he would find
A way to better serve his brothers
And his sisters in the sun
Sharing all that he has given
Giving all to everyone

Come and listen to the story
Of a journey once begun
Of a people and their plenty
And their season in the sun
And how they gave themselves to symbols
And things that they could hold
Living lives in desperation
In the fear of letting go

It amazes me
And I know the wind will surely one day
Blow it all away
It amazes me
And Im so very grateful that you made the world this way

For our plans have come together now
Where do we go from here
Will our differences divide us
Must we always live in fear
For there are things that we must move through
Some things to cast aside
But our father watches over us
Our mother will provide

It amazes me
And I know the wind will someday surely
Blow it all away
It amazes me
And Im so very grateful that you made the world this way

It amazes me
It amazes me
It amazes me

Words and music by John Denver

to what end are we here on this rock?

2010-01-22T13:18:00.006-06:00

this may be one of my most radical and anarchistic postings yet. as such, i cannot help but ponder what thoughts and motives the founders of our country (the original terrorists and traitors), must have been contemplating as they sought to break free from the royal tyranny of the british aristocracy.

fast forward to yesterday, and one of my facebook friends posted a sobering status update indicating her complete fear of our next presidential election cycle given the supreme court's latest ruling on campaign finance.

and while several comments were made on her posting, one caught my attention:

"The American people raised more than $10 million in five days, at $10 a pop, by texting the American Red Cross for Haiti. We can do anything if we agree to do it. Yes, this gives the corporations amazing power, but ... also unions and other groups, too. So we just have to fight back with our dollars. When the going gets tough, the tough ORGANIZE!!!"

in my mind, this is a very small, narrow, short-term and dangerous way of thinking which only perpetuates the problem.

big picture here... i would have hoped by now it is blatantly obvious (and painfully clear) that "more" money and "more" politics ARE NOT the solution, they are the problem.

we cannot seriously believe spending MORE of this already inflated and unstable indebted currency is a viable solution! and we cannot seriously believe that giving special interests cart-blanch influence on legislative process will solve anything!

first, the american people, and the rest of the world by and far, have no clue what a monetary system really is, what the currency represents and how money works. all they know is they have paper and coin "valued" at an agreed upon rate, and it is widely accepted in trade for goods and services.

you see, people say they "make money" when they work, but they have no real idea how it gets "created".

in fact, people don't make money, they trade their labor for money. it's only when two parties "agree" one thing is equal in value to another a trade can be made. we could trade our labor for anything else just as easily, but right now, our society tends to trade for money.

facts:

in reality, money is nothing more than debt
more money is "made" by creating/trading additional debt
the problem with an indebted currency is, because of compound interest, the debt can never be fully paid back

here's the skinny... the very second "money" is created/loaned by an issuing authority, and interest is charged, there is instantly NOT ENOUGH MONEY to satisfy the original obligation- ever- because it hasn't been created yet!

it can only be paid back in full (including interest) if the loan issuer accepts something tangible of agreed upon equal value, or by creating/injecting more money into the system.

in creating/injecting more money, more debt is created by default. this cycle repeats as everyone tries to pay back their loans.

btw, using loaned money to pay back loaned money IS A PONZI SCHEME! it will eventually collapse on itself. the fed knows this. the government knows this. bernie madoff knows this.

and because we are trading debt for goods and services, the value of goods and services are diminished even though the "price" may be increasing. this is inflation.

further, when no one will accept tangible items in trade, the value of money increases disproportionally with the tangibles we need. consequently, these become more expensive even though they are physically the same things they were the day before.

money has been the fuel of consumption in our mad-consumer society, and it has become synonymous with wealth and status.

i tell you, money does not equal wealth or status. in fact, i would argue that the more "money" one amasses, the more contempt one has for life and living.

now more than ever, the political machine, fed by "money", is being allowed to overtake our government and its ability to govern for the common welfare. the common good is obsolete, and profit motivated special interests reign supreme. anyone who believes otherwise has been blinded by false promises and narrow world focus.

while we are all chasing our tails in circles of debt and trying to reach the carrot at the end of the stick, the worlds natural resources and ecosystems are being ravaged by these very corporations who now have an unlimited voice, not to mention the supreme court's blessing, in our legislative process.

and i believe it is equally distasteful that with this new supreme court ruling, labor unions and any other group for that matter, will have the same obscene spending ability to promote their self-serving agendas unchecked.

it's bad enough they all do it through back-room lobbyists, but now with soft campaign contributions up until election day... ugh!

the only way to affect real change is to void the value placed in this false idol known as money (that jesus guy, a very radical community organizer, had it right when he ransacked the market in the synagogue), demand the debt be retired, refuse to be a "mindless consumer" and return our focus of value to people, community, health and wellness, personal accountability, unrestricted education and higher learning, innovation, craftsmanship, art, the pursuit of knowledge, and stewardship of our environment. this will only happen with a massive grass-roots effort. we cannot count on career legislative politicians to look out for the public good when their own jobs (and money) are on the line.

and moving on to the environment for a moment, please take note... cap and trade is nothing more than a money making scheme by for-profit corporations and investment bankers/traders to continue depleting resources, controlling the debt, and keeping apathetic "workers" on the treadmill under the fictitious impression of someday becoming "wealthy".

cap and trade will not lead to environmental repair. it will create an economic bubble (just as it did in europe), lead to increased pollution, and further concentrate control of debt in the hands of bankers and speculative traders (bookies and gamblers).

the only real way to reduce carbon emissions is to reduce carbon burning. the only way to clean up pollution is to let the planet heal and return to balance. the earth was here long before humans started thinking we were so important, and it will be here long after we learn how unimportant we are.

politicians, bankers, and now for-profit corporations treated as individuals have only self-interest at heart. yet these are who we allow to be our leaders.

we need a rise of a global "smart" party. we need a rise of global selfless leaders. we need to return focus on stewardship rather than consumption. we need to remove indebted currency from the equation. we need to promote exploration and research, and measure wealth in terms of knowledge instead of money.

we may never be able to remove the animal from human nature, but we can make conscious decisions to get past greed and fear of loss. really, there is enough for everyone, and the planet can sustain us if we steward our resources with respect.

the planet was here long before we were, and will be here long after we cease to exist. the question is, how long can we sustain our existence on the planet? what (if anything) will we be remembered for?

Campaign-Finance Ruling Opens Can of Worms

2010-01-21T13:47:00.008-06:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575017191336805982.html?mod=WSJ-WSJ-US-News-5

"The Supreme Court decision stripped away rules that limited the ability of corporations, unions and other organizations to fund and organize their own political campaigns for or against candidates. The court also struck down a part of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law that prevented any independent political group from running advertisements with 30 days of a primary election or 60 days before a general election. Together, the decisions make it easier for corporations, labor unions and other entities to mount political campaigns for and against candidates for Congress and the White House."

This is amazing! The lines of free speech have now been bastardized beyond any reasonable expectation our constitutional congress had in mind.

It is a well established ruling that we cannot (and should not) yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater if in fact there is no fire. Common sense, really. But the Supreme Court ruling as such was made FOR THE COMMON GOOD. FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL.

Removing campaign finance regulation does completely the opposite. It removes safe-guards that were in place specifically for the common good.

You see, every game has rules and regulations. Period. Boundaries are crucial for games to have a level playing field. And don't think for a second our democracy isn't a game. It has winners, it has losers, and it has bitter rivals pitted against one another. And it is a participatory spectator sport for sure!

Basically, campaign finance regulation IS a boundary which gives participants in our democracy game a level footing for their vote; it is a limit on the potential influence a financially privileged group can have over the less wealthy.

It IS NOT a limit on free speech! It is a limit on free-reign!

Anyone can still say whatever they want, however they want, for as long as they want... until the money runs out. This way, the financial influence of a privileged group CANNOT (AS THEY SHOULD NOT) have greater ability to influence our government.

CAREER POLITICIANS are not public servants. They are in their position for no other reason than to promote special interests.

This ACTIVIST court of ours has now taken us one step closer to the marriage of the corporation and government... a fascist state.

Here is a quote from Chris Hedges (and if you don't know who he is, GOOGLE IT!)

"We live in a corporate state. We live in a state that no longer responds to the interests of its citizens, but does the bidding of corporations. There is no shortage of examples of that, from the largest transference of wealth upwards in American history, to the so-called healthcare debate, where for profit healthcare industries are literally profiting off of death, any debate about healthcare must begin from the factual understanding that the for profit healthcare industry is the problem. Then we can debate what we do. But unfortunately, and many, many citizens know that, across the floor, but we can’t have it because we are completely controlled. We’ve undergone a kind of coup d‘etat in slow motion. We live in a kind of inverted totalitarianism where the façade of democracy and the constitution are held up as an ideal but the actual levers of power are driven by very destructive forces."

And be sure to check this out...
http://vodpod.com/watch/2398111-chris-hedges-empire-of-illusion-part-3-of-3

beyond resource management... resource stewardship

2010-01-20T15:00:00.005-06:00

I'm reading "No Impact Man" (Colin Beavan) given to me as a Christmas present by my sister. It's a quick read, but I'm a slow reader, so I get to it in 10 page increments.

In chapter three now, but chapter two actually grabbed my attention on something quite remarkable. It seems there is a Native American tribe in Wisconsin, the Menominee, who appear to actually have a method of forest management that works.

Strictly by the numbers:

Their 235K acres inventoried 1.3billion standing board feet of timber in 1870.
Through current day, the Menominee have harvested nearly 2.25billion board feet
Their 235K acres inventoried 1.7billion standing board feet of timber in 2009

So let me get this straight... over 140 years, this group of Native Americans have not only harvested twice the amount of lumber originally available in 1870, but have actually INCREASED the current available lumber inventory by .4 billion board feet!

How can this be?

We all know the way to get lumber is to clear cut, slash and burn, and get boards to market as fast as possible, right?

And did I mention the living ecosystem within the forest is healthier and thriving more than ever?

WHAT IS THEIR SECRET?

Well, it seems the Menominee tend to cut only the weaker trees, leaving the strong "mother trees"- and enough of the upper canopy- available for the forest to remain intact.

You see, the Menominee realize their wants and needs are secondary. And not just secondary, but beyond a certain point, frivolous and wasteful. They realize they are guests of the forest too- just as are the other inhabitants. And in fact, they care much more deeply for what the forest wants and needs than their own gain.

Simply, they know that the forest cannot provide if it does not exist.

To this end, I issue a challenge... to try this for a month: take only the things you "need" and half of what you "want". Determine your actual requirements for reasonable living, but not to excess. See what you can live without. Drive less. Consolidate errands. Buy locally. Turn out the lights. Carpool. Find your limits. Make conscious buying and consumption decisions. Be engaged. Be aware.

I'm guessing you will not only have more bank account left at the end of the month, but you will have less clutter and a better sense of your forest.

Sustainability begins with stewardship. What could it hurt to try? Peace.

just wondering why...

2010-01-20T12:45:00.004-06:00

Definitions:

Government, noun- the individual or group of individuals accepted by a group to administer the established rule of order for the common welfare
Government, verb/action- to govern; the administration of an established rule of order accepted by a group for the common welfare
Politics, verb- the art of promoting special interests for a narrow few.

Hypothesis: A government's role in society is to provide infrastructure, security and public services for the common good.

Observation: When politics/special interests are injected in a body who's sole purpose is to serve the common good, then no good can come of it.

Conclusion: Government and politics have no business being associated with each other.

Digression: While practicing politics and when their own futures are uncertain (financially and otherwise), Government (legislators and officials) have absolutely no interest in the common good of the people they govern. They simply bend to the whim of the highest contributing special interest in an effort to keep their jobs.

Noteworthy: Funny how bitter rivals within our system of government become best of friends when their jobs are not on the line (Clinton the first and Bush the second are now "best buds" when it comes to rushing to the aid of the impoverished nation of Haiti when pummeled by a natural disaster.) But note how we never saw them rushing to help lift Haitians out of their daily squalor before the disaster. Maybe they are still practicing politics?

dangerous times

2010-01-15T16:29:00.005-06:00

While I am a firm believer in obtaining news from multiple sources, I typically listen to NPR for most of my primary information.

The story broadcast on Jan 11th regarding the CIA death in Afghanistan really got my attention. Not for the heart-wrenching feelings of loss, or even the "compromised" security which led to the infiltration and suicide bombing, but for the simple word, "officers."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436124

DEBORAH AMOS, host:

We're learning more about a suicide bomber in Afghanistan as well as his victims. Elsewhere in today's program, we profiled the man who killed seven officers of the CIA. Now, we have the story of one of his victims.

I take exception to the lead-in for this story referencing the killing of 7 "officers" of the CIA. The word officers typically indicates a military or law enforcement designation of authority. The CIA is neither of these. CIA employs agents, operatives and even spies if you must, but not officers. Referencing workers of an ultra-secret, unchecked, clandestine organization as "officers" brings up images of Hitler's SS squads running rampant throughout WWII Europe. Further, what business is it of the CIA to be conducting war operations alongside military contractors anyway? If we have now blindly accepted the CIA as "officers" with military/law enforcement authority, then God help us.

I feel for the families and their losses. However, if the "agents" died in the line of duty, no matter what the instrument of death, it was their choice of career that put them in the line of fire. Should we not expect our enemies to fight back? War is war. These agents of the CIA had no trouble when they were on the delivering end of death- guiding unmanned drones into enemy positions and dropping explosive payloads. How many people, collateral and otherwise, had they themselves killed before being removed from the battlefield too? War is war.

kansas city's own private love canal

2010-01-08T23:58:00.003-06:00

I happened to be completely unaware of this "economic development" news until tonight when it was the keynote topic at the Building Sustainable Earth Communities "Breaking the Silence" Environmental Conference. This third annual event, held at the KCK Convention Center, showcases area efforts to return core values of sustainable living and development to local communities. This year's theme is "HOW HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT CONNECT".

Basically, the news is Honeywell- the ginormous defense contractor- is planning a new nuclear weapons components facility to replace the aging (and hazardous) Bannister plant (http://economy.kansascity.com/?q=node/5469)

The gist of article is as follows:

The project would build a 1.4 million-square-foot campus at Missouri 150 and Botts Road
The agreement, which has been in the works for two years, would keep 2,100 jobs currently at the plant which manufactures 85 percent of the non-nuclear parts for the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal.
The developer, CenterPoint Zimmer LLC, must obtain final private financing for the project by March 31
The project requires city approval because it calls for using a $2.6 million annual property tax abatement over 25 years
The timetable calls for the first buildings to open by July 2012

But neither this, nor the rest of the article referenced above, comes anywhere close to telling the whole story.

As such, the keynote address tonight delivered a rousing message regarding the development of this new facility. The big take away for me was two fold:

1) As of yet, there is no written plan or guarantee from the government to CLEAN UP THE OLD FACILITY. If there is any question about what this means, just think, "Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant" and put a dollar sign on it.

2) The new facility, which is supposed to be financed by the private for-profit developer and run by a private for-profit defense contractor, is actually being funded with tax dollars through a mysterious $79Million "budget allocation" earmark added in such a way as it will not need to be approved through appropriations subcommittees and such.

I won't digress into the politics or launch wild accusations of cronyism, but all you have to do is follow the money to see how this is happening. Look for connections among the players; Centerpoint/Zimmer, Kit Bond, KC Southern, Honeywell, General Services Administration, and the new intermodal rail project. Put the pieces together for yourself.

Things that make you go hmmmm...

Before we as Kansas Citians are force fed our very own private Love Canal, and our children's children are faced with cleaning up a toxic nightmare- or worse yet, some developer ends up building a school or housing project right on top of this crap because he gets a good deal on some cheap land- get into the game, step up to the plate and swing for the fence on this one.

It is expected on Jan 14th, the City Council's Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will consider and OK the development plan. This is an open hearing. You have every right, and an obligation as a citizen, to attend.

DON'T LET THEM DO IT WITHOUT A COMPREHENSIVE, WRITTEN PLAN FROM YOUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CLEAN UP THE OLD SITE.

BETTER YET, DON'T LET THEM APPROVE THE PLANT AT ALL BECAUSE HEY, WE DON'T NEED TO SPEND $79MM TAX DOLLARS ON NUKES "AND" GIVE THE DEVELOPER/OPERATOR OVER $40MM IN TAX BREAKS ON TOP IF IT.

YEA! That sounds like a fair trade. A worthwhile expenditure. A way to make a real difference for our future.

We're simply trading education, infrastructure and community dollars for war, destruction and nuclear weapons dollars.

You can argue jobs, jobs, jobs all you want. But I will argue, "exactly what kind of jobs do you want for our future?"

Is selling our environmental soul for a quick buck today really the message we want to send? Is continuing to perpetuate a nuclear world the direction we want to go?

Haven't we already proved nuclear weapons are a bad idea?

More nukes do not and will never make us safer as a community, nation or world. Period. But unchecked toxic waste dumps and lining pockets through politics will always deteriorate our society.

Do your own research and then go ahead and contact your mayor (816.513.3500 or mayor@kcmo.org) and your City Council too (816.513.1368) to tell them what YOU think about this.

but i digress even further...

2010-01-06T12:08:00.004-06:00

and the thing is... "it's" really not about any one thing: warming, or cooling, or climate shift, or flooding, or ozone, or being green, or carbon credits, or pollution, making money or economic development or what have you... those are just the byproducts of human arrogance.

rather, it's about learning to live/coexist within our environment. it's about taking care of what we have. it's about not consuming/using things until they are completely gone. it's about optimizing our existence- not maximizing take, or minimizing give. it's about all things.

it's about sustainability, and sustainability begins with stewardship. asking ourselves how long we want to be here, and in what condition do we want to live?

you see, the planet survived long before we arrived, and will be here long after we depart. but don't you just hate it when someone pisses in the swimming pool and ruins it for everyone?

defining the moment

2010-01-06T08:50:00.006-06:00

In the midst of one of the coldest weather patterns in recent memory, and more snow in Kansas City than I've seen since I was a kid, it's so easy to pull out the old standby, "Gee, I thought we had to worry about global warming?" and the proverbial, "Where are all those greenhouse gasses when we need them?"  

We say these things in jest, of course, just to comment on and cope with the extreme weather events. After all, we've got to have something clever to say at the cocktail party, right?  

And while the slide toward chit-chat, banter and small talk is an easy ride, made easier by a vodka-tonic, we inevitably fail to grasp the moment to talk "big", smart, intelligently and god-forbid, proactively.

  So next time you are tempted to dumb-down to the lowest common denominator in the room, here are a few REAL talking points which may (or may not) make a difference in someone's point of view. However, you will have at least PROACTIVELY made the attempt at disseminating usable information:

Global warming is typically referenced in the contemporary as the overall increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.
As one might expect, global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. The relative stability in temperature from 1999 to 2009 is consistent with such an episode.
Climate change, on the other hand, is a change in the statistical distribution of weather and regional climate characteristics, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind, and severe weather events over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years. It can be a change in the average weather or a change in the distribution of weather events around an average (for example, greater or fewer extreme weather events).
It is predicted that future climate changes will include further global warming (i.e., an upward trend in global mean temperature), sea level rise, and a probable increase in the frequency of some extreme weather events.

Remember, those who are flexible bend; those who are rigid break. Those who are smart know the difference.

cap-and-trade

2010-01-04T09:55:00.007-06:00

i've been a huge fan of annie leonard. she is positive. she is profound. she is engaged in her pursuit. she is open. and she won't drink the kool-aid.

her storyofstuff is an amazing project, and is "smart" enough to be provoking, but "simple" enough to be accessible.

enjoy the teaser video clip below and forget scare tactics such as rumors of $10-$15 per gallon fuel... the go directly to www.storyofstuff.com now and learn about the real reasons cap-and-trade is a bad idea.

avatar... the goliath of the moment

2010-01-04T09:43:00.006-06:00

i saw "avatar" over the weekend. it was moving. it was provoking. it was inspiring. and i was thinking further about avatar yesterday too- when i read, worldwide, its three week take is now up to $1billion (due mostly to inflated/premium ticket prices for 3D screenings).

what i was thinking, other than the stunning $1billion attention getter, was how the same old message was updated, repackaged, and resold. more so than any other movie i've seen in a while, these characters were cookie-cutter stereotypes. the corp guy was a greedy yes-man bastard, the military commander was a macho meathead jock, the scientist was a pawn, and our hero was the "disadvantaged" underdog.

this movie was so dumbed-down, so simple, so obvious, its no wonder no one thinks about the message... they don't have to think at all!

then i was thinking of all the contemporary movies with the same storyline... my list is as follows: alien, braveheart, dances with wolves, the abyss, waterworld, the day after tomorrow and pocahontas. and i'm sure there are more, older movies too, with the same story lines, i just can't think of them at this moment.

but since there really wasn't anything new in this film, other than the medium, all i can surmise is mr. cameron was just out to generate MORE income for his empire. is he an artist? is he a businessman? is he a rainmaker? has he done more good than harm? can he use the proceeds of his blockbuster to do something meaningful? what's his game? time will tell.

setting the tone for 2010

2010-01-04T08:37:00.006-06:00

In previous posts, I've commented on the blatant lies and misleading efforts put forth by spam emails- you know, the kind people blindly forward for whatever reason.

Well, 2010 wasn't even two days old when I received my first of the new year. Funny thing, it wasn't anything new. In fact, it was just another recycled extremist propaganda piece. This time though, it really pushed my buttons.

The photos was of yours truly Obama and the Mrs., standing at attention, pledging allegiance to the flag, with the following commentary:

"Hard to believe, but the attached photo shows two citizens saluting the American flag with the wrong hand! Their wedding rings, American flag lapel pin, and the mans suit coat buttons show that the photo hasnt been flipped. Im not amazed, just saddened by their ignorance!"

Not to be content with simply knowing better, I was compelled to speak out with a mass email of my own to those on the list who received the original offending spam. Here is what I put out there:

To all... I don't care what your politics, punditry, jingoistic bantering, knuckle-dragging or general laziness may truly say about your purported position in life or even your level of susceptibility to various kool-aid drinking offers... but I am just saddened by YOUR ignorance, and willingness to blindly pass along falsehoods which- regardless of your politics- demean a man and his wife... not to mention YOUR Commander in Chief.

To accuse, label and libel a person with false evidence is by its very nature the definition of fascism. Should I believe YOU are actually Neo-Nazis attempting to subvert YOUR DEMOCRACY?

CHECK YOUR FACTS. THIS ONE TOOK ABOUT 1 SECOND (0.35 TO BE EXACT) ON GOOGLE TO FIND: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/lefthand.asp

Haven't we enough problems to solve TOGETHER without continually resorting to separatist fear tactics?

Matter of fact... why don't you spend your obvious excess of free time tracking down some REAL issues which are at the core of the decline of life on this rock (not just the "American way of life", but earth inhabitants- human and otherwise- in general)?

Here is some research material for you: http://storyofstuff.com/

GET ON BOARD, OR STEP OFF. IT'S NOT THAT HARD, PEOPLE. WHAT ARE YOU SO SCARED OF?

So there you are. I believe the tone has been set, possibly for the decade. The message is ¡Ya basta! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Beyond morals, or religion, or whatever deity you subscribe... ask yourself what it is you truly value?

If you value your integrity, your reputation, your name... then you should understand others might value the same. Follow the golden rule; do unto others; treat others as you would be treated.

We will not be overrun by small, weak minded simpletons. We know better. We're smarter than that. We command our futures. We stand for truth.

Just as the email spam isn't anything new, neither is this message; just repackaged and updated for a new day.

Happy new year, all. May this post find you happy, healthy, safe, and motivated.

biofuels are bad?

2009-10-23T09:17:00.011-05:00

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

2009-09-19T17:25:00.029-05:00

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

2009-09-14T12:16:00.007-05:00

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)

2009-08-28T15:52:00.006-05:00

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...

2009-07-23T09:44:00.007-05:00

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

2009-06-29T15:32:00.007-05:00

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

2009-04-16T09:09:00.005-05:00

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?

2009-03-22T11:16:00.008-05:00

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

2009-02-21T10:21:00.003-06:00

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

2009-01-27T08:36:00.014-06:00

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...

2009-01-02T20:35:00.004-06:00

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

2009-01-02T20:33:00.000-06:00

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

bankrupt the big 3; go ahead... make my day

2008-12-19T08:14:00.007-06:00

I'm just about sick of it! Bailout, bankruptcy, consumer confidence... WHATEVER! The bottom line is that we're living in FEAR. We're afraid to face the music. We're afraid to take responsibility. Afraid of loss.

But what, really, do we have to lose? Our way of life? Our standard of living? Our "stuff"?

Fear has been woven into our lives, like never before, ever since Sept 11th, 2001. The Bush administration has taken this event, and orchestrated the biggest, most elaborate fear campaign for the last 8 years that has driven the "blinders-on" general American public into perpetual hysteria, panic and stagnation while big business (war profiteers benefiting from no-bid contract awards, no oversight and a blind eye from GAO), especially OIL COMPANIES have reaped the biggest ever profits since the rape and pillage days of the Crusades.

Now they want us to believe that the "bankruptcy" of one, two or all of the Big 3 would cause a ripple-effect so damaging to the car-buying public that NO ONE would ever buy an American car again. We should all be so scared!

As my grandfather would say, "The horse shit is knee deep in there!"

Personally, I'm thinking we should be more worried about the health of a company MAKING THE PARTS for a vehicle, than for the company putting the vehicle together. Why? Because the quality of parts and pieces determines the overall functionality and reliability of the vehicle.

Choose your cliché... "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link", "Garbage in, garbage out", and on and on.

You see, what the general public doesn't fully understand is that American car makers, and every car maker, are mostly designers and assemblers of components! And right now, robots do most of any car assembly. Sure, people still do it all the time- shade tree mechanics, home-build "projects", hot rods, etc., but truthfully, any monkey can be trained to assemble a vehicle. I'm not saying there aren't smart people on the assembly line, but putting a car together is a learned process. It's nothing more than a jigsaw puzzle.

However, those pieces and parts are made EVERYWHERE... foreign and domestic- specifically by our neighbors to the immediate north (Canada) and south (Mexico). Other parts, mostly electronics, are made in China and other Asian nations.

“Made in America”, anymore, really means “Assembled in America”. And sometimes not even that!

OK, remember the conglomerate Delphi (http://delphi.com/)? They filed for Bankruptcy in 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/business/09delphi.html). To look at the intricate, purposely complicated, tangled web of incomprehensible "bad decisions", just review the time line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_Corporation

You can’t tell me this doesn’t have any effect on the quality of American automobiles!

Where was Delphi's bailout? Where was the government concern for the protection of consumer confidence? Where was Washington on that one?

In reality, consumer confidence is misplaced on "brand". This is fostered by emotion. And emotion is, for better or worse, influenced by marketing and social pressures.

If you have any doubt of this, ask yourself why companies, of all types, spend hundreds of millions on market research, advertising and understanding/molding consumer behavior.

There was an article a number of years ago I read that described a theory of why many of the dinosaurs went extinct. The concept was that the super-predators had grown so big, and so all-consuming, that they literally ate themselves out of their ability to sustain their own existence. They consumed all, and there was nothing left to eat. So they starved to death.

This concept is transferable to any entity that requires consumption for growth- an animal, a business, a country, an economy, a society, or even a person or family. Consumption to the point of extinction is, in a word, STUPID! Aren’t we smarter than dinosaurs?

ENOUGH! What, really, do we have to lose? What are we afraid of?

We’re all food for worms. We will all die someday. We are only here for 66.12 years on average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy). We can’t take it with us. Everything will be left to those who come after us.

Short-term thinking and “band-aid” fixes are bad policy. We need to make every decision with this in mind.

Right now, the nature of human development is finally at a critical mass- both in economic and financial consumption, as well as the sustainability of our ability to guarantee our own survival.

The big will fall. There will be reorganization. People will be financially hurt. People will suffer.

But people will still survive. They will survive, grow stronger, grow smarter, and learn to focus attention on areas of real importance- specifically figuring out what is truly necessary for sustainable existence.

Greed is going away; it needs to. Fear is going away; it needs to. The Big 3 are going away; they need to.

I'm not saying we don't need car makers. I'm saying we need sustainable, smart car makers.

Let Detroit file for bankruptcy. Force the car makers to reorganize. Allow them to get mean and lean. Allow them to embrace human capital and resources in a sustainable way, not in an entitled mentality.

Car makers won’t go away. They will get better!

Think of bankruptcy like chemo therapy; we must constructively destroy the infrastructure in order to rebuild a healthier existence.

Then once it’s “cured”, Detroit needs to eat a smart, organic, balanced, healthy and sustainable diet to maintain it’s longevity.

Consumer confidence in a car maker isn't governed by whether or not it is "bankrupt", but by how it is bankrupted- how the marketing and advertising machine "spins" the event.

If our leaders tell us that bankruptcy will cause a decline in consumer confidence, then we will lose confidence. If they tell us to stand strong, and support our auto industry through this tough, YET NECESSARY, step in their development, growth and survival, THEN WE WILL STAND STRONG.

It's all about attitude. About what we're willing to do. About what we're not afraid to face. About being smart.

If we fail to act, we are doomed to accept whatever happens to us. If we act in confidence, we command our future and accept responsibility for our actions.

detroit is all talk

2008-12-16T08:56:00.004-06:00

If you haven't seen the docu-tainment (documentary-entertainment) film titled "Who Killed the Electric Car", you've got to. Period. If you have seen it already, then you probably know where I'm going with this conversation.

The pending auto bailout for Detroit's big 3 is nothing more than a band-aid for a much larger, and grotesque ailment- specifically GM's uncanny ability to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.

HISTORY
GM acquired 51% of Sweeden's car maker Saab in 1990. To be fair, Saab is much more than a car maker. Since 1937, Saab has been one of the world's most innovative builders of civilian and military aircraft, heavy trucks, buses, and other technology. Saab was the first car maker to turbo charge a production passenger car in 1978, giving a standard 2.0 liter 4cyl engine the power and performance of 6 or 8 cylinders, yet maintaining the fuel economy of the smallest Asian imports. Since then, Saab has led the way in powerful fuel efficient automobiles.

Jump to 1985 where Saab introduces the EV-1 (Experimental Vehicle One: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_EV-1). So advanced and cool looking, this car was even featured "as is" in the second Back to the Future movie. Beyond that, this car featured 66 PV solar cells on the all-glass roof that powered a ventilation system and a 285HP 4cyl, 16 valve turbo charged engine capable of pushing the car 0-16 in 5.9 seconds. Take that, Lotus!

OK, so GM acquires Saab in 1990, and by 1996, had hijacked the EV-1 brand name. It took the name, slapped it on a hap-hazard effort at putting an electric vehicle on the road, and ultimately bastardized the brand.

Here’s how: The GM EV-1, leased through Saturn dealerships in California and Arizona, was an unmitigated disaster, not because the cars weren't up to task, but because GM had no intention of continuing support for the cars past their 3 year leases. Further, GM “robbed” the Nickle Metal Hydride battery technology from a small battery maker, Ovonic Battery Co, it “partnered” with, and then sold the patents to Texaco in 2000. What does an oil company want with rechargeable battery technology? http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-structures/9321068-1.html

Also during this time, GM's engineers imposed their Detroit Will on the design and engineering of the Saab product line. Consequently, beginning in 1994, the NG (new generation) Saab began a major decline in quality and customer satisfaction. By 1999, GM handed the majority of design work back to Saab, and there was a resurgence of innovation and quality.

A NEW AGE
In the early 2000s, Saab begins experimenting with biofuels, specifically, E85 ethanol "dual fuel" engines. Jump to 2006 and Saab showcases its 310HP "BioPower" touring sedan (aka, stationwagon!) powered by, you guessed it, a 2.0 liter 4cyl turbo charged engine. Super efficient, super clean and super fast. Did I mention it has the cargo/payload capacity of most SUVs!

Then in 2007, Saab goes one step further showcasing a 100% ethanol powered hybrid-electric convertible at the Detroit auto show. The engine was the standard Saab 4cyl turbo, but get this, the hybrid-electric components were all GM! This car reportedly can be operated on battery alone, or with battery/engine working together.

Oh, did I mention that Saab has sold 100,000 BioPower cars in Sweeden! In other words, Detroit not only has the technology, but it has the ability and resources to put this stuff on the road.

TODAY
So where am I going with all this?

How about... GM is at it again! They killed the EV-1, and now with the market and economy in the toilet (including the pending auto-bailout), even though they say they want to be “clean and green”, they are willing to toss aside Saab and everything it has achieved. Additionally, GM is looking at allowing the Saturn brand to go away as well. FYI, Saturn has the most fuel efficient hybrid SUV on the market today. http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/12/saab-volvo-satu.html

Enough already! It’s time for the Big 3 and the UAW (which is holding Detroit hostage) to step aside, and allow the smaller, more nimble, less burdened, and truly innovative companies take the helm for our transportation future!

Detroit, you say you want to build more fuel efficient cars, lower emissions and help build a greener future. You talk it, now walk it... or take a hike!

EV initiatives- what's it gonna' take? (a preliminary discussion)

2008-12-07T10:54:00.001-06:00

Ford said that we could have any color car we wanted, as long as that color was black! Just like in every aspect of life (relationships, investments, whatever), there is a give-and-take necessary (in this case, compromise between manufacturer and consumer) to achieve maximum ROI.

Market forces will eventually prevail. People won't buy EVs if they aren't compatible with the charging system. Do you think the auto industry would have grown like it had if "gasoline" hadn't been standardized? So it's in the car makers best interest to "universalize" their designs as much as possible for maximum manufacturing efficiencies, maximum sales potential and maximum profit. This is called "Optimization"- finding the right mix of inputs that allow for maximum benefit to everyone in the loop.

I’m guessing a big part of the bp initiative is to standardize both the "vehicle side" and "dock side" connections. Similar to USB, connections will be cross-platform regardless of vehicle make/model. In other words, regardless of battery design, the important thing is for the connectors to be universal. I'm sure bp probably has a business unit specifically set up for producing, selling and distributing these components to car makers such that, regardless of the battery design, the vehicle can utilize the charging system.

As for the battery exchange program, yes, this poses specific design concerns in terms of "fit". But regardless, not everyone will want to subscribe to battery exchange (just like some people still don't subscribe to text messaging). In other words, if I don't have a car with the type of battery used in the system, I won't want to pay for that service. But you better believe I want my vehicle to have the right plug-in.

However, there is always a solution. Just like each vehicle became standardized on gasoline, maybe the one thing about ALL electric vehicles is that the same battery pack dimensions have to be standardized. Imagine the incredible economies of scale and production efficiencies that can be achieved if this were the case! Something like, "This is the battery, now build the car around it! You can do anything you want in terms of car design, but this is the size and shape of the power cell."

Or how about this; have you seen the adapters that allow a AA cell to be put in place of a C cell? It's basically a C cell size casing that houses an AA cell such that the AA properly fits in the space where a C cell would normally be. Since both the AA and C are 1.5V, they both work (of course, the AA probably won't last as long). So, maybe it’s simply the battery compartments on every EV that needs to be standardized, in terms of size, location and access, in order to make automated swapping a reality.

Here's something else to consider; maybe battery exchanges shouldn’t be automated. Oregon and NJ fuel stations don't allow self-service, and are actually required by law to have full-service attendants pumping the fuel. I don't know the reason for NJ's law, but in Oregon, the law was enacted to create jobs in order to counteract the decline in jobs caused by the implosion of the timber industry as it literally grew too large to be sustainable.

Maybe the "law" might have to be that EV battery swaps are performed by service station technicians. These EV technicians would do the work necessary to keep the charging/swap station operating and functioning properly. This could be one of the very specialized, high-tech/green-tech jobs created by the industry! NEW BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES AND CAREER PATHS FOR AMERICA’S CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE!

the price of "cheap"

2008-12-07T10:51:00.004-06:00

The concept of an item or product being "cheaper" to buy than another is something that has bothered me for quite a while. Is "cheaper" better?

It really depends on how "cheaper" is defined, and in what context; near-term or long-run.

Ask yourself... would you rather buy a "cheap" $10 toaster every year for 10 years, or 1 $100 toaster that lasts 10 years?

I'll go out on a limb here and say that most American's prefer to buy the $10 toaster because it's a "bargain". It allows us to spend less on this item NOW, and allocate more financial resources to purchase other "stuff". But not only are we convinced that we need a toaster, but we need a toaster-oven, microwave, food processor, chopper, rotisserie oven, counter-top grill and any other gadget marketed to make our lives easier.

What is the real cost of all this?

We buy a $10 toaster and other "stuff" from a popular, well known, ginormous big-box retailer. In order for these items to be "cheap", they have to be built "cheaply"- using low cost labor, materials, etc. Low cost labor involves finding an opportunistic sweatshop overseas to take on the manufacturing project. This sweatshop not only needs cheap labor, but they need to use the cheapest materials and have the cheapest "process" costs (energy, etc.) because the big-box will only pay a certain amount for the toaster since it knows it must sell X quantity in order to make a profit.

The first concern here is that the cheapest materials directly lead to the failure of the product. This leads to the disposal and re-consumption of the item! The "disposal" does nothing but necessitate more and more landfills. As our landfills pile up, we lose valuable natural resources to toxic (because the materials were as cheap as possible!) and harmful exposure.

The second thing to consider is that the cheapest process costs lead to expensive long-term costs. Like what? Consider that "cheap" power, such as coal, oil or other fossil fuel resources emit massive levels of pollution. And these outsourced "cheap" production facilities in overseas countries DO NOT have the environmental safety protocols (or laws) in place to keep levels of pollution low. Further, because their only interest is being able to give the big-box what they order at the price the big-bix is willing to pay, they don't have the money to reinvest in ways to reduce pollution.

The third aspect of this supply-consumption chain is TRANSPORTATION. Forget for a moment that the raw materials have to come from somewhere and ask, "How does the finished product get from its manufacturing plant to my house?"

On a giant, fuel-oil guzzling ocean cargo ship of course! What's fuel-oil? Quick lesson... there are two types of engines that run on liquid petroleum: (1) internal combustion- aka gasoline engine, and (2) compression ignition- aka Diesel engine, or fuel oil.

Compression ignition engines are capable of delivering great levels of power. And they are rather efficient in terms of their consumption to power ratio. This is the reason they are used in construction and farm equipment, electric generators, hauling vehicles (OTR trucks and railroad locomotives), cargo ships and even some automobiles. But they still emit exhaust. What kind of exhaust? The worst kind!

Fuel oil comes in many different grades: 1 through 5. #1 is know as light oil such as kerosene. #2 is diesel fuel used in most standard diesel engine applications, #3 is light industrial oil, #4 is heavy industrial oil, and #5 is known as bunker fuel.

Bunker fuel is the heaviest, nastiest, thickest, dirtiest and "cheapest" of all fuel oil because it requires the least refining. As such, it pollutes the most!

Regardless of power to consumption ratio, bunker fuel, burned in cargo ships, is the worst polluting of all fuel oil. Not just because the oil itself emits the worst pollution when burned, but because the cargo ship HAS VERY LITTLE EMISSION CONTROLS to capture/clean the exhaust before it gets dumped into the atmosphere, and subsequently back to earth (and ocean) in the form of rain.

Now take into consideration the retail price of the toaster, $9.99. Typical retail margin is 40%, that means that the big-box, freight included, paid somewhere around $6 for the toaster.

So we're saying that it cost $6 to decide to sell toasters, decide on which toaster to sell, find a manufacturer that has the design for a toaster, have the manufacturer acquire the raw materials to make the toaster, actually have the worker convert the raw materials into a "toaster", pay the worker to do the conversion, dispose of any waste or by-product, pack and ship the toaster over seas. $6!

Now, for $3.99 more, we need to unpack and transport the toaster to a warehouse, transport the toaster to a big-box store, put the toaster on the shelf, turn on the lights so people can see the toaster, and conduct the transaction of the sale of the toaster. $3.99!

The only way for any of this to be profitable is on VOLUME. What kind of volume? The kind of volume created by selling "replacement" toasters when the original one lasts only a year because it was made on the "cheap"!

That assumes the toaster lasts a year. What about the ones that don't even make it that far? The ones consumers bring back when they break within a month or two. Not only does the big-box "give" them a new one, but REFUSES TO PAY THE MANUFACTURER FOR THE BROKEN ONE. With less revenue, the manufacturer is forced to cut costs by, (1) reducing wages, (2) finding "cheaper" materials, or (3) cutting shipping costs.

Any or all of these simply lead to lower standard of living for workers, less reliable products, more product failure, increased consumption, increased landfill and higher levels of pollution.

Further, do you think the manufacturer is going to take the toaster back, fix it, and send it out again? Hell No! The transportation costs alone would drive the company out of business.

AND IN NONE OF THIS DID WE EVEN CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (CARBON FOOTPRINT) OF THE HOUSE AND KITCHEN YOU PUT THE TOASTER IN, OR THE VEHICLE YOU USED TO GET TO THE BIG-BOX TO BUY THE TOASTER.

I ask again, "What is the price?"

And what's the window dressing as to why we buy into this? Maybe it’s the image of a higher standard of living! The concept that we're better off if we "have the stuff" because it shows we have the ABILITY to "have the stuff."

I submit that the highest standard of living, the real exercise of power and the ultimate in consumer evolution is when we HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONSUME, YET CHOOSE NOT TO!

I'm reminded of the movie Schlindler's List, when Liam Neesan attempts to prevent the camp commandant from killing a prisoner by saying the real power isn't in having the ability to take a life, but in the ability to spare it.

Lest you think I’m oblivious to the way the world works right now, I know this is only but half the story. What, actually, does the repeated sale of a $10 toaster represent in terms of the world financial picture?

I would surmise that we tend to pay for the toaster with plastic instead of paper- credit card rather than cash.

This ads a whole new level of complexity to the scenario, that is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to comprehend.

Simply however, when plastic is used, we say to the store, "If you give me the toaster now, my bank promises to pay you because I've promised to pay them. And if I don't pay them exactly as promised, I will pay them more (interest) for the extra time."

The bank, in turn, may not have the ability to pay for the toaster either, so it goes to another bank and asks to use their money. Just like before, if the money isn't paid back as promised, interest is owed for the extra time.

Each time these "loans" are made, money is created. Money that never existed before. But it has to come from somewhere! It comes from the next sale, and the cycle repeats. This is the growth of the economy- creation of money.

The money goes back around the horn in the form of wages, other loans and consumption based spending. Of course, in order to keep prices low, wages (and other costs) have to stay low. AND WITH WAGES LOW, WE CAN’T FINANCIALLY AFFORD ANYTHING BUT THE CHEAP PRODUCTS!

We've seen what the real price of "cheap" money is- just look at the real causes and effects of the mortgage implosion. We've seen what the real price of "cheap" products is- pollution, landfill, low wages, etc.

Now we see what the real impact of “cheap” is…

Short term- WOW, a $10 toaster! Long-term- not so good.

story of stuff

2008-12-07T09:49:00.002-06:00

This is something everyone needs to take time to watch (20 minutes is all it takes!) It could change your life.

http://storyofstuff.com/

cheers. sg

to bail or not to bail?

2008-12-05T13:26:00.000-06:00

Should Detroit, or any of the new, small "alternative" car makers get ANY congressional handout from the tax payer?

A billion here, a billion there... all the sudden, we're talking real money! "Getting" some of the money isn't necessarily what is needed by either Detroit or the small start-up car companies. What's needed is a restructuring of our ability to use the economic resources we already have (specifically tax law!) and allowing free-markets to operate. Of course, we've learned that "free-markets" still tend to need some kind of oversight and regulation (worker and environmental safety, etc.), to help keep the rampant, self-serving nature of human greed in check).

In reality, the "money' would be better directed if it were allocated for things like:

(1) Clean energy transportation and renewable energy infrastructure redesign/rebuild- remember, if the original power grid and road/highway system was never built to begin with (which put A LOT of people to work!), there wouldn't have been such a need/desire/demand for automobiles OR the overall growth/increase in standard of living we've experienced in the first place.

(2) Human capital- affordable education with REAL standards, greentech job training programs, etc.

(3) RAISE FUEL/CARBON TAXES!- no one likes higher taxes, but face it, higher cigarette taxes have helped more and more people see that the adverse financial effects of smoking are as hard to swallow as the adverse health effects. The general public needs to be shown that the adverse financial effects of driving petrol vehicles will be as painful as the adverse environmental effects of burning the fuel. This will eventually lead to a decrease in fuel usage, thus a decrease in fuel tax revenues, and the need to replace the funds some other way... like...

(4) Implement a national ROAD USE or TOLL system- Fuel taxes are a type of use tax, because you only pay them as you buy/consume more fuel. The problem with this is that tax revenues are directly dependent on the use of carbon emission spewing vehicles. The more we wreck the environment, the more money there is to better the road systems so we can continue to wreck the environment! VERY BAD IDEA!

But again, as people consume less fuel, even if the tax rate is higher, tax revenues (money used to pay for roads, etc.) will eventually fall. Thus, people that USE the ROADS need to pay for them, regardless of fuel usage. Just like betterplace wants us to adopt a subscription based driving experience, those who drive could subscribe to local, regional or national Road Use Program- paying only for what we use, when we use it.

(5) Consumer incentives- Remember when the government "created" demand for the biggest, heaviest, least fuel efficient, yet most profitable SUVs by allowing up to $100K tax incentives for buyers! Funny how the proposed incentive for the lowly EV is a mere $7500. I PROMISE YOU THIS, IF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD ALLOW UP TO $100K TAX INCENTIVE FOR EV'S (NEW OR USED!):
(A) PEOPLE WILL DEMAND CHARGING STATIONS (BUSINESS/JOB OPPORTUNITIES!)
(B) MORE FLEETS WOULD GO ELECTRIC (LESS CARBON EMISSIONS)
(C) MORE TESLA'S (AND OTHER EV'S) WOULD BE BUILT EVENTUALLY DRIVING DOWN THE COST, AND ALLOWING COMPANIES TO SPEND ON R&D, BRING BETTER AND BETTER PRODUCTS TO MARKET
(D) EVENTUALLY THE "PRE-OWNED" EV MARKETPLACE WILL BE CREATED, BRINGING DOWN THE INITIAL PURCHASE PRICE FOR MANY PEOPLE AND NECESSITATING MORE SPECIALIZED, HIGH-TECH/GREEN COLLAR JOBS TO SUPPORT THE PARTS, SALES AND SERVICE NEEDS OF THE EV SECTOR.
(E) DID I MENTION THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF LOWER EMISSIONS?

YADA, YADA, YADA.

Further, given that the US lost 533K jobs LAST MONTH ALONE, and part of GM's "grand plan" is to eliminate up to 30K more jobs, I don't see that the bankruptcy or reorganization of ANY of the big three would be any more degrading/destructive to society than throwing away billions on an attempted bailout- which many believe isn't even nearly enough money to make any real difference anyway!

So, who gets what? In the end, I'm afraid it's really up to YOU AND ME, AS A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE, to break away from our blinders-on, apathetic, non-in-my-backyard, Joe Six-Pack, Joe-Plumber CRAP, and demand accountability from business leaders, elected officials and each other.

Cheers! sg

betterplace- a great place to begin

2008-12-05T13:21:00.000-06:00

Better Place company has initiated the mass development and implementation of the infrastructure necessary to support an all-electric vehicle transportation system- starting with the personal car- and powered through clean, renewable energy sources.

They also have an on-line community that has grown exponentially over the past week since the announcement of their efforts in Hawaii.

This is really worth checking out, and supporting!

betterplace.com

green carjacking- continued

2008-11-27T08:36:00.000-06:00

I took the liberty of emailing Mr. Ken Green with my comments, and was fortunate enough to receive a reply. It was short, without much substance, intended simply to pacify my interest:

Steve -

Thank for your note, this is clearly something you're passionate about, and something on which we'll have to agree to disagree. You might read this article in the Washington Post though, and observe that others are making precisely the same points I did in the article you referenced. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/24/AR2008112403211.html?hpid=topnews

Best,

Ken

Grateful to have an open conversation, I continued:

Ken, thank you so much for taking time to reply, and for the link to the article. I truly appreciate the effort. And yes, we will agree to disagree. No doubt analysts and experts will continue to make the same/similar points as you, just as many will see it from my side as well.

But rather than just disagreeing, do you think there is anything here worth discussing? I sure would like to know what exactly it is about your point of view that you are so attached to. And I don't see you proposing any solutions.

For instance, I make the statement that finding the point of "optimization", rather than extreme efficiency or extreme profitability, might be a more prudent approach. See attached .pdf

Honestly, I don't believe hybrids, as they are today, are anywhere near the answer. Heck, the carbon footprint of one Prius alone cannot be offset by it expected useful life. But it is a bridge to new technology and new consumer behavior.

Other AFVs have promise, but widespread adoption is far down the road. Additionally, the biofuel industry is still in its infancy and there is little understanding/consensus/policy yet of the best way to incorporate them.

For instance, with biodiesel, B2, B5 and B20 (the number represents the percent of biodiesel blended with petroleum) all represent a step in the right direction for a number of reasons- lower emissions, higher lubricity, displacing petroleum consumption, etc. But the infrastructure isn't there to support it yet (both producer, distributor and seller).

Same with ethanol. 10% ethanol is in just about all gasoline sold and can run in any gasoline engine with modification, but provides no real benefit in terms of lower emissions or reducing petroleum consumption. E85, on the other hand, is pretty hard to come by- and there are relatively few vehicles that can actually run on the stuff due to materials compatibilities issues. It also has such a dramatically lower energy content that it takes MORE to do the same job. So while it lowers emissions and reduces petroleum consumption, it is wasteful because more fuel is used to accomplish the same work. In my mind, these are extremes that make little sense in terms of optimal solutions.

However, studies reported by ethanol.org (http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Press_Release_12507-1.pdf) show that 20 to 30% ethanol is a better blend for maximum performance, lower consumption, emission reduction and cost, and it can in most of today's cars without adverse mechanical effects.

Same with biodiesel. B20 to B30 is optimal in terms of infrastructure/equipment compatibility, maximum performance, lower consumption, emission reduction and cost.

These are the real short term fixes that will give us enough time to make the next leap in AFVs.

Rather than embrace these solutions, what are we to do... nothing? Status quo? Just because "the economy" is in the toilet?

One reason the economy is in the toilet is because current thinking and practices just aren't working. It isn't sustainable. And the system broke!

Are you familiar with the idea of predators growing so big, so dominant, that they eventually drive themselves to extinction by consuming everything around it and having nothing left to feed on? It's not a stretch to see that's where Detroit is headed.

Detroit needs to embrace this opportunity to optimize. To educate consumers with truths, not truthiness. To become socially responsible and sustainable. To tell the labor unions that enough is enough, and to stop the bleeding caused by unsustainable contracts (http://wsjclassroom.com/archive/06may/auto2_jobsbank.htm) and pension plans. To invest in retraining workers. To cross-train workers, maybe with other businesses/industries, to be useful/productive across multiple disciplines. The answers are out there!

Oh, and don't forget to implement a "pay for performance" initiative ACROSS THE BOARD- from the CEO to the janitor. Remove all unreasonably insane base pay and bonus structures, remove all golden parachutes, and let everyone know that if you suck at your job, you don't get paid at all.

You know, I'm thinking that all the money saved just by these corrective practices alone would be more than enough to pay for retraining/education, as well as universal health care for all workers- especially if the people were educated in eating healthier, getting more exercise and practiced a philosophy of proactive wellness rather than reactive illness management.

Great to have you as a sounding board, and I welcome any elaboration you might offer to discuss my comments.

Regards,

sg

Literally, less than 30 minutes later, he had gotten back to me with this:

Steve -

You raise many interesting areas of discussion, but I suspect that we come from such a diverse way of seeing the world, we could discuss these things for days, or weeks, without gaining any significant agreement. Still, in the interests of civil discourse, my world-view in a nutshell:

1) People seek to satisfy their basic needs, ala Maslow. They want housing, food, potable water, breathable air, education, healthcare, gainful employment, and so on. (Note that I did not say "pure air or pure water," such purity ranks far below other needs for most people in the world). Environmental protection generally ranks low on this list, and is really only affordable by people who are significantly wealthy, which is why real environmentalists want the world to get rich as quickly as possible, and not slow it down.

2) The best system yet developed to provide more people with more of those needs than any other according to the expressed will of the people is democratic capitalism. Yes, it has some unpleasant side effects, such as disparities of wealth, capacity for abuse, and so on, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, Democratic Capitalism is the worst system except for all the other systems. Democratic Capitalism has generally swept the world, and the countries that generate the most wealth are invariably capitalist democracies. A few countries that generate wealth comparable to capitalist democracies are usually natural resource exporters, whose societies have far worse inequities.

3) For Americans to compete in environment of democratic capitalism, where many billions of people are willing to work for far less, we must be more efficient in other ways, which includes getting the cheapest energy available to us and using it up before going to any more expensive form of energy. The same is true for transportation (which is how we get goods to market, and how we provide the services people need to let them be more productive than workers in other countries). It's also true of our input goods, the food we eat, and everything else: low-cost makes for greater competitive advantage than high cost.

4) If the US raises its cost of energy, goods, and services compared to other countries we will lose competitive ability, and lose the very economic productivity that has allowed us to control pollution better than the developing world, and to set aside vast areas of parkland and wilderness rather than consume them, harming the many species therein.

So, bringing this home to our starting subject. The only people who know what car is right for them, to let them compete effectively as individuals, and for us as a society, are the individuals themselves, making their choices on a free market. The more the government interferes in that market, the less efficient the decisionmaking will be, and the less well off we will all be as a society. What the government should do in the car market is to get out. Rip out the subsidies to energy, transportation, and everything else, and let markets do what they do best: allocating resources to their most efficient use.

Best,

Ken

To which I replied:

Ken, YOU ROCK! Great conversation. I had a blast reading your world-view. See my comments accordingly, and we'll call it good. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Kenneth Green wrote:

Steve -

You raise many interesting areas of discussion, but I suspect that we come from such a diverse way of seeing the world, we could discuss these things for days, or weeks, without gaining any significant agreement. Still, in the interests of civil discourse, my world-view in a nutshell:

1) People seek to satisfy their basic needs, ala Maslow. They want housing, food, potable water, breathable air, education, healthcare, gainful employment, and so on. (Note that I did not say "pure air or pure water," such purity ranks far below other needs for most people in the world). Environmental protection generally ranks low on this list, and is really only affordable by people who are significantly wealthy, which is why real environmentalists want the world to get rich as quickly as possible, and not slow it down.

Just as the supreme court evaluates our constitution in terms of it's implications on today's society, we must also look critically at all generally accepted theories/areas of study and interpret/analyze them in terms of today's world.

Maslow- physiological, safety love/belonging, esteem, self-actualization.

Just above the basic physiological needs ("air" and "water"), you'll find safety- which includes safety of resources and health. In this sense, I'd argue that environmental protection- "clean air" and "clean water"- actually ranks very high, as it falls within the second level of basic needs.

Additionally, getting "rich" fast is usually done "at any cost". And just like "efficiency" at any cost, these courses of action are simply not sustainable in the long run. In fact, far too many of the "rich" in our society have gotten rich by running businesses that, while they may have followed the letter of the law, they haven't truly protected the environment as much as they could/should have. And many have skirted environmental laws all together and done more harm than good. Some get caught, but some don't. Illegal dumping, water contamination, exposure to workers, etc. are all ways to cut cost, and get rich.

I agree, the market can help weed out these bad seeds, but not before the damage is done. That's the highest cost of all.

Further, these "rich people", when they become rich, tend to live to excess, which in it's very essence, is the antithesis of environmental stewardship. Real environmentalists don't want the world to get rich, they want the world to do the most good what they have, with what's available and more importantly, with what they can do without. A Consumption Conscience, if you will.

And worse yet, when people are "on their way" to becoming rich, they tend to live way outside their means just to give the impression that they have already achieved a level of status. This type of reckless behavior only perpetuates the lack of environmental concern.

2) The best system yet developed to provide more people with more of those needs than any other according to the expressed will of the people is democratic capitalism. Yes, it has some unpleasant side effects, such as disparities of wealth, capacity for abuse, and so on, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, Democratic Capitalism is the worst system except for all the other systems. Democratic Capitalism has generally swept the world, and the countries that generate the most wealth are invariably capitalist democracies. A few countries that generate wealth comparable to capitalist democracies are usually natural resource exporters, whose societies have far worse inequities.

You have very little argument from me on these points. But free-market capitalism, democratic or not, will always benefit the individual over the society. Heck, just look at all the worthless junk consumers are programmed to consume! Bad for landfills, bad for pollution, bad for health, bad for the economy in the long run and thus bad for society as a whole. But someone is making a buck selling it!

We all want a certain standard of living. But everyone's definition of "standard of living" differs. Wealth generation is not the problem. The problem, or "unpleasant side effect", is the disproportionate wealth generation, led by the elite who tend to protect themselves by either buying protective legislation (tax law and otherwise) or buying lawyers to defend, without conscience or concern for anything other than protecting their own wealth.

People will be people, and human behavior is what it is. But at some point, a proactive effort must be made, led by both the top (our leaders- business AND government), as well as grass-roots efforts (local community organizers, NFPs, NGOs, etc), to promote and foster a real shift in our priorities. We've been programmed to consume (http://www.storyofstuff.com/)... why not reprogram with other areas of focus- such as conservation and optimization.

3) For Americans to compete in environment of democratic capitalism, where many billions of people are willing to work for far less, we must be more efficient in other ways, which includes getting the cheapest energy available to us and using it up before going to any more expensive form of energy. The same is true for transportation (which is how we get goods to market, and how we provide the services people need to let them be more productive than workers in other countries). It's also true of our input goods, the food we eat, and everything else: low-cost makes for greater competitive advantage than high cost.

You use the word "efficient", which is really a misnomer, as it doesn't tell the whole story. Efficiency, in it's essence, sacrifices something. In your example, we are sacrificing cleaner, renewable energy for "quick and dirty" energy just because it's cheaper. But in the end, something always suffers, and thus costs more.

Lets take human health, for instance. It may be "super efficient" in terms of the time it takes for a person to "have a meal" (eat a quick burger, fries and coke- 3 minutes in the drive thru, 5 to 10 minutes down the hatch), but at what human cost? Nutritional value is nearly zero, and counterproductive properties including high levels of fat, LDL cholesterol, bovine growth hormone and high-fructose corn syrup are off the scale. The "intangible" costs are that we suffer from obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and are generally unhealthy just because we've found a way to eat fast.

So, is it really "efficient" to eat like this? Of course not. Not unless we counterbalance the unhealthy effects with acts of healthiness- such as incorporating more nutritional elements into our diets, getting some exercise and eating in moderation. The problem is that not everyone takes the time to counterbalance the effects. It takes too much effort, and we are lazy.

In terms of cheap energy (coal, oil, etc), the "efficiencies" of low cost are more than out paced by the negative toll on the plant and human health. Not only are we not doing enough to counterbalance the effects, because "they cost too much", we aren't even doing the things that inherently cost less, such as simply reducing consumption.

How about this equation... how much acid rain, smog, asthma, autism and death, does it take to add up to, "we just can't do this any more"?

And you say, "use it up" before going to more expensive energy? WOW! Use it up? Since when has being "all-consumptive" ever led to anything good? Hunting/fishing to depletion/extinction, over eating, addictive use of drugs/alcohol, etc?

4) If the US raises its cost of energy, goods, and services compared to other countries we will lose competitive ability, and lose the very economic productivity that has allowed us to control pollution better than the developing world, and to set aside vast areas of parkland and wilderness rather than consume them, harming the many species therein.

Very interesting argument. However, I say we will lose competitive ability AND our standard of living (parkland and wilderness), regardless of costs compared to other countries abroad, if we don't reinvest in infrastructure, reduce our consumption, become more "frugal" in terms of energy usage, and demand cleaner, renewable energy. Basically, we need to accept responsibility for our presence on this planet.

We, as a people, are to a point in our evolution that we can no longer simply rely on financial profitability to drive our development. We must start doing things because they just need to be done. That doesn't lower anyone's standards, it raises everyone's.

Have you considered the amount of money spent on the cost of waging war, let alone the loss in human capital?

If the amount of $$$ spent on Iraq and Afghanistan (including wasted, lost, and over-billed by war profiteers such as Haliburton) would have been used as reinvestment on infrastructure at home, or even constructive foreign aid (rather than destructive), we would be able to help raise the bar across the board. I'm not talking about spreading-the-wealth, I'm talking about reinvesting in infrastructure and people in terms of education and standard of living.

So, bringing this home to our starting subject. The only people who know what car is right for them, to let them compete effectively as individuals, and for us as a society, are the individuals themselves, making their choices on a free market.

But... when things are a bad idea, we as a society have generally accepted principles, guidelines and standards of conduct, as well as laws, intended to keep individuals from harming themselves as well as others. Example: Even though we have an individual constitutional right to free speech, we can't/shouldn't yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there's really no fire, right?

Even though we have the right to drive whatever we want (as long as the vehicle is "legal" and road worthy), it is now generally accepted that 7mpg is a bad idea. Thing is, 7mpg was ALWAYS a bad idea. As individuals, we've told Detroit to give us better MPG vehicles. But they have refused to do it because they know we are so dependent on our cars and trucks, that we will buy whatever they make.

We may not drive them as much with high fuel prices, but we will still buy them. They know it. The bank on it.

So at some point, we need to have our elected officials speak for us, and demand accountability from industry. Anti-trust laws, labor laws, whatever. If tacking on environmental criteria to a financial bail-out is part of that, then good! Tax dollars being used responsibly for once. By mandating environmental guidelines, we as people are simply now telling Detroit, through our representative government, that we want them to stay on task and not buckle under the pressure of maximizing profit. Be innovative. Find a way to do it better. Representation by the people, for the people!

Just curious, were SUVs always so profitable, or is there a cost curve showing that they were in the red once upon a time. Or maybe the Big Three relied on "creative financing" to perpetuate the gorging, http://blogs.ft.com/gapperblog/2008/07/were-suvs-such-profitable-products-after-all/

And did we ever really need SUVs? Just because gas was cheap, did we need to guzzle as much as possible? The current condition/state of the auto industry is the best argument proving that this course of action, though profitable in the short run, was in fact a REALLY BAD IDEA over all.

The more the government interferes in that market, the less efficient the decisionmaking will be, and the less well off we will all be as a society. What the government should do in the car market is to get out. Rip out the subsidies to energy, transportation, and everything else, and let markets do what they do best: allocating resources to their most efficient use.

Finally, something we completely agree on! Government interference in any market can be counterproductive, especially if bureaucratic red-tape and unnecessary complications get in the way. But since we know government won't get out, we as individuals within this representative capitalistic democracy, need to demand accountability and push our leaders to mandate our interests in terms of policy and enforcement.

And again, "more efficient" or "less efficient"is relative to what is given up in the process. Do you really believe we're much better off as a society guzzling fuel, spewing emissions, and consuming everything in sight just for the financial profitability of it?

APATHY AND INDIFFERENCE IS THE REAL ENEMY. I THINK YOU AND I CAN AGREE THAT IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY, AS CITIZENS AND PEOPLES OF THIS LAND, TO SIMPLY HOLD ACCOUNTABLE ALL OF OUR LEADERS- BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT, SPIRITUAL AND OTHERWISE.

THAT'S THE REAL MARKET!

PEACE.

SG

And there you have it. I'm guess we didn't solve any of the worlds problems... yet, but at least a conversation like this is "out there" now, and hopefully causing other to pause for a moment, take stock in the BIG PICTURE, and decide for themselves just what kind of world they want to live in. sg

Detroit going Green

2008-11-22T16:00:00.000-06:00

I recently read a short paper by Ken Green in the American regarding the "green movement" forcing it's way into Detroit. Below is my letter to Ken, including complete text of his paper, and my own comments in green:

Kenneth, you're a smart guy. Your resume and credentials are impressive. By all accounts, you are are an accomplished individual and it should stand to reason that you would be an insightful and reasonable person.

No doubt, I would be crazy to challenge you.

But after reading your commentary regarding the "green movement" shoving their agenda on Detroit... all I can say is that YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! It's points of view like yours that will perpetuate ignorance and bad decisions.

Please see my comments in green below following each section of your article from the American:

Always eager to shove their agenda into a seemingly unrelated policy discussion, the green movement has joined the debate over bailing out the Big Three automakers.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to tie federal assistance to a requirement that Detroit make more fuel-efficient, eco-friendly cars. “Any car company that gets taxpayer money must demonstrate a plan for transforming every vehicle in its fleet to a hybrid-electric engine with flex-fuel capability, so its entire fleet can also run on next generation cellulosic ethanol,” demands New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Writing in The Washington Post, Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs calls for a “major industry restructuring to position the United States to lead the world in producing cars that get 100 miles or more per gallon.” (Sachs is pinning his hopes on plug-in hybrid vehicles, “fuel-cell cars,” and the much-ballyhooed—but not yet seen or priced—Chevy Volt.)

In other words, at a time when the top Detroit automakers are desperate for financial aid, the federal government should force them to sell more expensive cars that are less profitable. Make sense to you? Me neither.

The auto industry has proven that left on it's own, it will make decisions ONLY in the best interest of the bottom line, with no regard for long term sustainable, good or even smart strategies. This has been, and will continue to be, at the expense of the auto worker, the environment, the consumer and the new global economy.

Now, you can argue that a corporation's only purpose is to post a profit for it's shareholders, and you would be right... in the old economy. In today's world, more than ever, business, government and society are increasingly interwoven and all are more demanding of accountability.

Specifically, the green movement- which I would argue is more of a revolution (as in, revolving, coming around again), is a new force in truly measuring the economy on a global scale. No longer is the simple (or complex depending on what type of bookkeeping and accounting loopholes are employed!) profitability of a corporation of primary concern.

Example: How can producing a $55,000 SUV that financially profits 30% in terms of cash, but macro economically (environmental, social and other such "costs") drives a stake into the heart of our being, be a good practice? Pollution, toxins, waste, landfill, fuel consumption and emissions- not just in the manufacturing level, but in terms of the entire useful life of the vehicle- are all costs that affect the economy. The true cost of that vehicle is nearly immeasurable. In looking at the big picture, it's easy to see that long-term sustainability is not present in this example.

It’s hard to see how greening Detroit will help car companies, car drivers, or American taxpayers. Greener vehicles are more expensive to make and bring in less profit than other cars. They cost more to finance, more to repair, and more to insure. Their sales depend heavily on tax incentives—which means that selling more of them will require more taxpayer dollars. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that plug-in hybrid vehicles cost $3,000 to $7,000 more than regular hybrids, even though the performance differences between the two models are slight, and the really fuel-efficient hybrids cost $12,000 to $18,000 more than the conventional brand.

As my grandfather, a life-long railroad engineer, father of 8, and die-hard republican- yet master of common sense, would say, "The horse shit is knee deep in there." Come on. Development of ANYTHING new (vehicle or otherwise) is ALWAYS more expensive until economies of scale can come into play. Common sense dictates that as technologies improve, costs drop and profitability increases. THAT'S WHAT DRIVES COMPANIES TO INNOVATE AND DO BETTER!

Additionally, I must remind you that the petroleum industry is- always has been- heavily subsidized with TAX breaks! Who pays for that??? The American tax payer!

So, just off the bat, greening Detroit will help the American tax payer by reducing our dependency on petroleum, and eventually driving the oil companies the way of the dinosaurs. Ironic, isn't it!

And if it takes tax incentives to cause a huge shift in our consumer behavior, then so be it. I seem to remember there was a HUGE tax incentive for buying SUVs over 6000lbs, which led to Detroit making BIGGER and BIGGER vehicles, and buyers buying MORE and MORE of them. The government made it easy for the consumer to buy gas guzzling, emission spewing, expensive to insure, monsters of the road. Why not for greener vehicles as well!

BTW, history has proven (not estimated) that big-ass SUV's cost $10K to $30K MORE than regular station wagons or trucks. So don't tell me price is an issue! American's will always pony up for whatever the want.

What about general maintenance? Service on a hybrid is understandably different than traditional combustion engine vehicles, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison for sure. But lets take tires for instance- a set of rubber for an SUV can cost as much as $1600 or more. A Prius can be put back on the road for more than $1000 less! That's $1000 of disposable consumer income that is able to be REDIRECTED to another focus such savings, or other costs of living.

Consider the Chevy Volt. When it was first announced, the price estimate from General Motors (GM) was $30,000. That soon jumped to $35,000. Now GM’s president says that the actual price could be closer to $40,000, and that GM will still lose money on the sale. As for fuel cells, GM’s prototype fuel-cell car runs on hydrogen and emits nothing but water vapor. It’s hard to get greener than that—but it’s also hard to find a more expensive car: the prototypes cost $1.5 million to produce.

Consider the source... GM is the creator AND killer of the EV-1 electric vehicle. It is also the suppressor of battery technology development. GM once owned the patent rights to NiMH batteries, which showed great success and promise in terms of rechargeable technology, and then sold that to Texaco. Hummmm?

Additionally, I think your financial/monetary arguments are lame, especially in terms of R&D. R&D dollars are there for a reason- for innovation. PROTOTYPES ALWAYS COST MORE. And, you obviously haven't considered the R&D tax credits so heavily relied upon by corporations- especially the auto industry, yes?

But for the sake of arguments, have you bothered to compare green R&D spending with pharma, aerospace or IT R&D? I'm guessing it's all about the same, proportionally, in terms of the cost of prototype development and bringing safe, reliable products to market. (Oh, and I'm taking serious liberty in assuming that corporations are intent upon bringing safe, reliable products to market! Truly, history has shown that profit driven corporations will find ways to cut costs/corners- usually in terms of consumer safety- all the while paying lawyers obscene amounts of money to defend their decisions, and lobbyists even more to get congress to ease consumer protection laws.)

Hybrids are also more expensive to insure. Online insurance broker Insure.com shows that it costs $1,374 to insure a Honda Civic but $1,427 to insure a Honda Civic Hybrid. Similarly, it costs $1,304 to insure a Toyota Camry but $1,628 to insure a Toyota Camry Hybrid.

Oh, LAME again! Lets see, a $53 annual difference for the Civic? Are you serious? Less than one cup of coffee per week! And $324 per year additional for the Camry? Less than a dollar per day! The savings in fuel alone will make up the difference. I know people who spend more on dry cleaning and nail salon visits!

What explains the higher rates? According to State Farm, hybrids cost more to insure because their parts are more expensive and repairing them requires specialized labor, thus boosting the after-accident payout.

OK, let's forget for a minute that economies of scale will eventually come into play, and parts will become less expensive over time. You want us to assume that having smart, well trained, specialized labor is a bad thing? Green-tech jobs are the future! These will be the in-demand jobs that propel our labor force into a higher paid, higher standard of living.

Even conventional small cars are more expensive to insure than larger vehicles, because the former are involved in more accidents that produce extensive injuries. According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, the same driver would pay $412 more to insure a Honda Civic compact that gets 36 mpg on the highway than he would to insure a Honda CR-V (Honda’s mini-SUV) that gets 27 mpg.

You're right, after-accident payouts don't just include the costs of parts, materials and labor... they are really about bodily damage to the human being. But more people are smashed up by, and in, SUVs because of the perceived sense of invulnerability leading to higher risk taking and unsafe driving practices. Talk about high risk!

FYI, both Travelers and Allstate offer discounts for Hybrids. Shop around! According to Allstate's website, http://www.allstate.com/insurance-made-simple/hybrid-cars-cheaper-to-insure.aspx, "Hybrid cars aren't just cheaper to drive. Research shows that hybrid car owners tend to fall into the lower-risk category, which gives insurance companies the chance to offer them a lower insurance premium. This depends on the insurer, though, so be sure to ask when you get your quote."

I guess it all really depends on your point of view, and your spin. But at some point, we all need to make a decision of what we want, and what we are willing to live with. What are you willing to "sacrifice" to ensure a more balanced planet?

President-elect Barack Obama wants to give a $7,000 tax credit to Americans who buy a plug-in hybrid vehicle. He says that such a tax credit will help carmakers sell a million plug-in hybrids over the next seven years. If Obama is right, that means the government will spend around $7 billion in taxpayer money to promote the sale of plug-in hybrids. Replacing all American cars with plug-in hybrids would require tax incentives worth roughly $1.8 trillion dollars (assuming each car would cost the government $7,000).

I defer to my argument on the SUV tax break. THAT "INCENTIVE" WAS UP TO $75,000! How much did that cost the American tax payer!

If the green movement succeeds in carjacking the Detroit bailout, automakers will be forced to sell costlier and less profitable vehicles. Before allowing that to happen, policymakers should consider the consequences of higher car prices, namely, reduced sales, slower fleet turnover, and longer operation of aging vehicles that emit more pollution and break down more frequently than newer automobiles.

You really want people to believe that we should continue to produce status-quo, gas guzzling vehicles because the alternative will lead to reduced sales, slower fleet turnover, and longer operation of aging vehicles, etc? GET REAL! People still drive old cars today, and always will- both out of desire and necessity.

Other's buy new cars every year or two. Shouldn't they have reasonably priced, readily available alternative fuel vehicles to choose from? Then after a few years, they trade in, and thus starts a NEW supply of USED cars, AFV's this time, now available for buyers in the pre-owned market. WHAT A CONCEPT. It all has to start somewhere.

In fact, I'd argue that selling less and having slower fleet turn over (reduction in consumption?) is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it means we have a chance to replenish resources, restore damage to the environment and renew/replace the infrastructure necessary to foster a more sustainable planet AND global economy.

Additionally, it will also FORCE Detroit to "get real" in terms of reorganizing into organizations that will survive and thrive in the coming decades.

They should also consider how higher car prices will affect Americans in the midst of a nasty—and possible long—recession. Finally, they should ask themselves: Is this really the way to make U.S. automakers more financially secure and globally competitive?

Arguing that we shouldn't enable a green agenda in Detroit because of your perceived short-term "pain", is absurd. The recession pain we are all feeling now, due to fast-and-loose financial business practices/greed, is just one example of why big corporations will never act in the best interest of society without a little encouragement.

If you are so worried about how higher car prices might affect Americans during this nasty, possibly lengthy recession, I say NOW is the best time ever to feel the pain- in the midst of ALL THE OTHER PAIN!

Ask yourself this... if you had to have a broken arm, leg, concussion, cuts and a coma, would you prefer being inflicted with multiple events (get beat up, fall down stairs, trip, wreck your car, etc) or just get it all over with in one big, bad trauma? The pain will be there no matter when each thing happens. But if it all happens at once, then the sting of one will help the sting of another not feel as intense. It will also give the WHOLE SYSTEM a chance to reset, regroup, make a full recovery and become stronger/better than before.

Don't you know, love shared is doubled, while pain shared is halved?

Now, I'm not arguing that the "green way" is the only way, or that radical tree-huggers have all the answers. But I will argue until I'm blue in the face that the status-quo cannot be the answer either.

And though I'm an idealist, I also realize that until we, as peoples of the earth, are evolved to the point where we ALWAYS act in the best interest of existence rather than self-interest, we will have to cope with greed vs. good. As a bridge to that more evolved, enlightened level of humanity, a more reasonable approach is to find ways to "optimize" our efforts in order to balance efficiency vs profit.

Attached is my "optimization curve" theory that shows the relationship of maximum benefit to the population in relation to extreme efficiency and extreme profitability. Basically, somewhere between each extreme is an optimized level of "enough" of each.

So, before ANYONE makes ANY decisions, we need to consider ALL of the consequences of continuing down the path we've been traveling. In my opinion, the "negatives" you present are nothing more than circumstances of transition.

I know you probably mean well, but I think you are truly misguided in your analysis. So, please, rethink your archaic, backwards, and generally "bad" ideas such that your readers might actually get through tomorrow with a better understanding of the things we really need to be doing in order to build a stronger future.

Sincerely yours,

Steve Greene is a renewable energy activist, and biodiesel industry refugee

Kenneth P. Green is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.