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

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

This holds true with anything:

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

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

Enjoy...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are their responses:


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

What do I dislike about Waxman-Markey?

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

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

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

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


So why would I support it?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

shifting our thinking about economic concepts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How’s that for something to think about!

has all common sense left the building?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace.

fact and fiction; debunking the crap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

PEACE.

bolivia on biodiesel... oblivious

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

Specifically, Bolivia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exerpts from planet.betterplace.com conversations...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year

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

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

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

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)

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"

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

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?

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

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

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