Ban the car campaign

Okay, so I offer a melodramatic solution, a little too excessive?

Well, I admit a "Carbon tax" would be more comprehensive... if the cost of things is set in proportion to CO2 released, then we'll have an economic incentive in the same direction. And the same result comes out... the cost of MANUFACTURING (currently designed cars is increased, say by $20,000 each and the cost of running cars is increased by say $0.50/mile. Result LESS cars sold, LESS miles driven, right?

Well, no, yes and no. Making NEW cars more expensive may encourage people to keep old cars longer even if newer models will pollute less. Imports may not be treated fairly (already lack of clarity in trade - value and unaccounted costs).

I'm partial to the "quota" approach by country. Say the U.S. sets a goal of reducing CO2 by 25% in 10 years - INCLUDING accounting for import consumption. Then every adult gets a "quota" - say x lbs/CO2/year. When they buy anything they need money and CO2 credits. If they don't have enough CO2 credits they can purchase such credits from someone else. So "under-consumers" can make money by consuming less, although they have to make sure their gained money isn't spent on things they need CO2 credits to buy!

It has a fun sort of crazy economic sense. Conservatives might come back with their "breathing credits" point, seeing breathing as creating CO2, but even if accounted for on equal ground, it would be a tiny fraction of CO2 that can be producing by fossil fuels.

I suppose there's LOTS of SHARED resources that need accounting. If a city government is given a quota based by taking a fraction of its citizen's quota, it must also balance its CO2 with available resources or raise taxes to buy resources from other cities.

Overall it makes me tired to imagine so much accounting, but being a banker would too I suppose! A whole new "CO2 credit banking" system would have to be created, or would we let the current bankers in the game?!

And finally there's the "bottom line" issue. If manufacturing costs go up, and other countries don't follow the same, then we're at an economic disadvantage. (Of course there's already a disparity between those who CAN use fossil fuels to produce, and those who don't - like first world farmers "underpricing" third world farmers.)

Overall, I think countries like the U.S. will be the LAST to play fair, since we have the largest advantage now. Other countries CAN and SHOULD stop trading with us to protect their own interests, and will be better off when the crash comes.

It would be fun to imagine a state like Minnesota (or California) could have a CO2 cap and trade system. In the long run participants GAIN, but how to implement a local system where there's no border controls seems to make it infeasible. There's no way to enforce a system that isn't closed - that allows imports to not be accounted for.

More fun to have simplistic campaigns like "bad the car". I mean seriously, a local region or at least like the metro area could implement a goal to reduce overall vehicle miles driven, raise costs, and subsidize alternatives. More later maybe!

damned environmentalists - say what matters!

Got email from http://www.nrdc.org/ today, asking for me to help in their campaign to save the teddy bears of the north:
***************
http://www.nrdconline.org/campaign/polarbearsos_0207

I strongly support your proposal to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The scientific evidence that polar bears are threatened with extinction from global warming is overwhelming. Polar bears are completely dependent on Arctic sea ice to survive, but 80 percent of that ice could be gone in 20 years and all of it by 2040. Polar bears are already suffering the effects: birth rates are falling, fewer cubs are surviving, and more bears are drowning.

I am therefore very concerned that your proposal fails to identify global warming pollution as the cause of rising Arctic temperatures and vanishing sea ice. Our government's refusal to curb global warming pollution is a primary cause of the polar bear's melting habitat and terrible plight. It must be addressed. And while your proposal discusses the kind of habitat that is essential for the polar bear's survival, it does not designate any of it as "critical habitat" that could help the bear recover.
Please act swiftly to finalize the listing of the polar bear and designate its critical habitat. We must act immediately if we are to save this magnificent Arctic creature from extinction.
***************

It's all Bushie's fault. If he'd just accept the evidence of GW and do something the teddy bears would be saved.

What's a person supposed to do?

Okay, bad bad government. I disapprove.

Can we PLEASE be a little more thoughtful here?

YES, GW has its most clear effects in the artic and it will continue whatever we do. Those teddy bears will have to "make do", adapt, move south, whatever, and they may yet go the way of the wooly mammoths. boohoo

Let's get REAL here - cute teddy bears DO NOT TAKE PRIORITY over humans. Yes they're cute. Yes, they will suffer and die. That's NOT going to run economic policy. A good party is not shut down because of a few unfortunate animal victims. (Call them "An unfortunate lunch" if you like and we can save the rest for the zoos.)

HOW do we "protect the polar bears"? If they are judged as "Endangered species", what will we do about it? What possible measure of success can we make? Short of hauling a few representatives into ZOOS pretty much nothing.

But the NRDC wants us to sign their petition?

How about MY petition?

*************
In response to the plight of the majestic polar bears in their melting habitat I vow to bury my car (so no one else can pollute with it either), walk or bike
everywhere I go, turn my thermostat down to 55F, use only wind or solar powered electricity, grow all my food in my backyard, and quit my job so I'm not temped to spend any more money on this destructive economy.

Please sign here....

*************

No takers? Well, maybe a few, but not many parents I bet, and not many congresspersons.
Maybe killing myself might be a better approach to save the polar bear. AT LEAST I've got no KIDS who will pollute long after I'm DEAD!

No NRDC has no such solutions. They want us to sign a f*cking petition to make everything better, and send them $50 I suppose. They'll keep lobbying in our name for feel-good campaigns which will make no difference.

I still think the SOLUTION to global warming is obvious - STOP burning fossil fuels! Now this MUST be the destination, even if it can't be done instantly. This goals leads to my grim conclusions ONLY if there's no alternatives, and probably there are none that will equal fossil fuels, but we gotta do something!

My GOAL is to convince 51% of Americans that their KIDS will have a horrible life unless they reform sooner or later. I DO think the automobile must go, somehow, even if it is just a fraction of what we must do.

Anyway I'd be happier with the "Ban the car" campaign over the "Save the teddy bear" campaign. At least the first one is more honest of the difficulties ahead.

It's a moral issue

Great fun that Gore's movie "An inconvenient Truth" won an academy award. Well, if nothing else it's a good feel-good redemption for the "Inconvenient chads" in Florida 2000. President Bush has his 30% approval, and Gore smiles on with his new popularity and well-feed girth.
I just have a ringing still in my ears from his movie, even 8 months ago "It's a moral issue" (that we deal with global warming)

Well, I don't know what a moral issue MEANS, but abortion is also a moral issue - protecting babies or protecting choice, with fundamentalists on both sides.
So Gore's moral issue has fundamentalists as well I imagine - protecting the economic growth and protecting the future of the earth - and his fun example of a balance with gold bars on one side and the earth on the other. Gore has taken sides - says the earth is more important than the economy.

Well, NO he hasn't exactly said that, not absolutely. He admits the economy is important and can't be stopped, but really no problem, just tighten our belts a bit, and get a few new technical miracles and we can continue with something like what we've done in the past.

It would be MORE FUN if Gore would have said "It's a moral issue" to the fact the U.S. has under 5% of the world population and consumes something over 25% of the world's energy. SURE China is belching its way along to catch up with our CO2 consumption, and must exceed our production of particulates at least, but seriously the moral issue is that the world can not handle our current consumption while the rest of the world is trying to catch up.

No, it may be a moral issue, but really it's a political issue. WE can feel guilty for our excesses, but until the consequences affect us intimately we're not going to change. I mean not on some abstract invisible CO2 argument anyway. The silly right "CO2 is life" ads are unworthy, but the ads are not even needed really.

The political issue is how we'll prepare for more expensive, more dirty energy in the future as global warming and population rises stress local environments into time-bombs waiting to be triggered. The political issue is how to deal with a million refugees after each local crisis, whether water shortages in the Southwest, or hurricane flooding in the south, or whatever. I think about that sitting safely in the nation's refrigerator called Minnesota. I don't know what crises we have in store - perhaps slow drought anyway, and natural gas shortages under a bad winter perhaps, but we're pretty well holed-up here. I suppose economic failure is the primary risk - when the federal government finally blows out all faith in the future by excess borrowing.

There's innumerable "moral issues" that are reduced to mere "political issues" - how can a society respond to needed change to reduce long term costs.

I was just reading about a reformed environmentalist "Stewart Brand" who complains of the harm causes by excessive worry of other environmentalists - nuclear power and genetic engineering. He says environmentalists underestimate the resilience of nature and human systems to adapt to changes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Brand

I don't disagree with his approach. I agree largely the environmental costs of coal are no lower than uranium. I can't be optimistic about the future of modern culture.

I am moved by our great successes, and possibility to predict the future - to measure 1C temperature changes over a century? That seems pretty subtle to me. I basically accept there are excesses within our monetary system that MUST lead to collapse, whatever is happening within the environment and availability of energy and resources.

It's a moral issue to be confident that the future of all good things rests on consumption patterns which must change, and that all incremental solutions seem to do nothing more than delay the day of destiny.

Raising children is a moral issue too. I wonder what advice to offer my girlfriend's oldest son, now 15, as he starts to stake out his place in the world. Do I admit my pessimist, admit that 4 years at the university might NOT be worth the 10 years of debt it now costs. No a moral issue might best be responded to by the conclusion that ignorance is bliss - until consciousness is ready for change, there's no value in honest knowledge.

And so Gore's optimism in "Can Do" spirit perhaps is the only useful response, however dishonest.

It is curious to question "Fatalism", my belief in inevitable failure. It is a pragmatic response. It's a nice illusion to believe in the progress of humanity, to imagine hard work adds to the sum total of humanity into an infinite tower of Babel to God. But knowing there IS lose and failure and unpaid costs out there waiting for us, I think Fatalism has a value - to lower our expectations of heroism and accept what pleasures the moment can bring. An ugly fatalism will accelerate the race to the cliff, but an ugly faith in progress can do that just as well. A softer fatalism merely takes the reality of the limits of time, and tries to delay the day of destiny - not delay by higher walls against the flood, but delay by seeing each day as unique. I don't know something like that. Basically fatalism is a BRAKE to ambition. I believe that. It is about finding a resting point.

U.S. Energy Experts Announce Way to Freeze Global Warming

Spectacular report at:
http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
And intro at
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/partner/story?id=47403 U.S. Energy Experts Announce Way to Freeze Global Warming

ASES unveiled a 200-page report, Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.: Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 2030. The result of more than a year of study, the report illustrates how energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies can provide the emissions reductions required to address global warming. ... The report illustrates how energy efficiency measures could keep U.S. carbon emissions roughly constant over the next 23 years as the economy grows, and how renewable energy technologies could make deep cuts below today's emissions.

The title is a bit deceptive ''Freeze Global Warming" - implying stopping the effects of GW - which will likely continue even if we stopped 100% of our emissions. But freezing CO2 emissions, well, it's certainly a start, however short it falls to reducing GW effects in the future.

I can play the "republican" side and ask - "What effect will this have on our economy?" And I refuse to play games to say that there are costs to be borne. I will just say the costs are there sooner or later, and we're better off acting sooner. I admit there's aways a danger in "rushing" things - basically there is a rate of progress in any technology, and if you push that rate higher, you can end up wasting resources on deadend technology. As well, central decisions on any one technology can cause ultimately more promising alternatives to be underfunded and even delayed.

I can also play the "environmentalist" side and question if decisions are being made with bad assumptions that are unsustainable by any technology. Certainly some believe that humanity is past the point of sustainability in energy consumption, that no combination of technology in renewable energy can meet our needs, and holding delusions that they can allows us to continue further on an unsustainable path that will be that much harder later to change. This point of view says conservation is the most important response in the long run - learning to do more with less, or less with less as the case may be!

The problem is as long as we're dependent upon cheap energy (from one-time sources of ancient stored solar energy) there's no clear measure for what is possible under a post-fossil fuel world, what we ought to be able to expect.

A proper development of alternatives would assume a very conservative assumptions of available energy, design society to be able to function under that level of energy, and then devote R&D that can gradually expand alternatives as they become competitive and then let things move as they can.

What we're ideally trying to do is gradually move from a cheap-energy economy into an expensive-energy economy while making no allowances for our high expectations. This failing means we'll go on subsidizing ethanol simply because it has potential even as the methods of production now offer minimal gains in energy or pollution.

I would look at farms as the starting point, since food is an essential production. The question I have is what methods of farming do we have that exist between the subsistence farming of the Amish, using horses and biomass fertilizers, and the "industrial farming" which is fully dependent upon external inputs of energy and fertilizers? The first won't work for a modern culture of 2% of the people in agriculture. The second won't work if we have to reduce our CO2 emissions and run our farms from local resources.

Do we want to expand that 2% farmers? Do we want to restore some animal labor on the farm to help reduce the energy demands of farming? Can a farm produce energy to run a farm?

I don't know the answers at all. It seems like using biomass to produce a liquid fuel isn't an energy winner, but perhaps wind power could be used to power equipment, and perhaps even power reactions to create fertilizers locally? As a country, I would think experiments in farming that reduce external inputs would be a great virtue, and make us more secure.

So lots of good questions. I hope experiments and R&D continue to looking at these questions and solutions.

Mortgage law proposals

Interesting news:

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/988284.html Mortgage law proposals get cold shoulder from lenders
The rapid rise in foreclosure rates in Minnesota has lawmakers looking for ways to crack down on abusive lending practices.
But some mortgage brokers argue that the proposed new guidelines, expected to be introduced in the Legislature in several weeks, are overly restrictive. The brokers say measures to tighten rules on subprime loans would cripple efforts by ethical lenders to serve new immigrants, low-income residents or other nontraditional borrowers.

Minnesota has the nation's highest home ownership rate, 78 percent, but its foreclosure rate jumped 46 percent last year, according to RealtyTrac. More than 2,000 homes in Minneapolis and St. Paul went into foreclosure last year, according to sheriff's records. Cities and counties across the state are seeing record increases. In response, Attorney General Lori Swanson has called for legislation that, among other things, would prohibit loans that result in negative amortization, a situation in which the mortgage payment is smaller than the interest due, causing the loan balance to increase. Sometimes the balance can increase beyond the value of the house. Swanson's proposal also would force lenders to verify consumers' ability to pay and would slap those who provide "grossly unsuitable" loans with a penalty of up to $75,000 or two years in prison.

I find myself on the side judging that there's too many mortgages out there given to people without the fianancial means to handle them, along with excessive interest rates, and terms that make them harder to repay.

Mostly I hate feeling exploited, and I imagine people trying to get ahead are desperate enough to accept unreasonable terms on a blind faith that they can get what they want. In the end many fail and banks get rich along the way. The main risks banks face for lost is if the whole system goes down and they can't resell the property that is foreclosed upon.

So I tend to value 'regulation" first to protect people, second to protect the stability of the economy since a a wide scale increase of foreclosures can help knock a regional economy further into trouble.

In principle I support the requirement of 20% down for a mortgage. Of course it protects the banks first, but it also protects consumers to PROVE their means before they sign for debt. A 0% down mortgage is unsound. SURE, you can let "mortgage insurance" cover it, but to me that's just borrowers throwing money down the drain and making it harder for them to successfully pay off their loan.

It is curious banks would have "negative amortization" loans which put their loans at risk, although again perhaps MI is used to cover the risk.

Of course in my little ideal world, everyone is sensible and disciplined, they save their money and live frugally and wait to afford what they need. On big things like mortgages there can be value in long period borrowing, but the system is corrupt in my mind. For one I think being able to deduct mortgage interest from their income is unfair to people who rent. People who can afford to own homes are not the ones who need subsidies.

A coworker from Canada said they don't have this deduction. It's good to know it is not everywhere, since people easily hold up entitlements as rights once they are offered and politically impossible to reverse handouts like that. Of course the real hand-out is to the banks who get more interest on loans they'd not be able to make without the deduction.

I get so annoyed by policitians - "I'm not going to raise taxes. I'm going to lower taxes for the middle class." If they told such tall tales in exchange for cutting entitlement expenses I might believe them.

I mostly appreciate AG Swanson's efforts, however much I'm unsure what's best. Yes to regulation. Yes also to debate on reducing the entitlements that subsides risky behavior and by comparison punish prudent fiscal conservatism.

Tithing

Cool history at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe

Apparently MEANS "10%", and goes back to the babylonians and a 10% tax (sales tax?)

The term is now used with donations to churches by members, but what's a person supposed to do who isn't a member of a church? I mean, well, you know, not really sure if ANY church represents the will of god or anything, however much they might seem benevolent in their goals.

Overall, I don't particularly approve of a fixed "tax" - a rather regressive idea, no deductions or anything. So a "rich man" can pay 10% and have 6 houses, 600 sheep and all that, while a "poor man" is supposed to starve his family to make sure his 10% goes to the church? Exaggerated examples of course, but just noting.

And what about a "single person" versus a "family man" - should the single person pay his 10% while the family man struggles with greater obligations of his spouse and children?

AND what about thieves? Can they give their 10% too? And what about slave-owners? I mean if I derive my wealth from working 100 slaves to death, does GOD really want his SHARE? I'd tend to think NOT!

Ah, I'm just down on the idea that God really cares about math like this.

Nah, GOD is surely smarter than me, but he must at least see as much as this! He gave me a brain to study things and form my own opinions on things, not to depend on rules from Babylonian kings.

A few years ago I asked my employer to reduce my salary by $6000/year and in exchange give the money to charity of my choice. It was a good deal for me since I didn't itemize my deductions. You can be sure this was MORE than 10% of my pretax income. AND one year I tried $12,000/year, much more than 10% of my income. But when I bought a house I figured "investing" in reducing my mortgage was a better choice.

Back to 10%, when a person is in DEBT, I sort of imagine GOD otta offer such people temporary waivers on their tithing - putting the 10% towards their debt, and then if things go well, they can go back to tithing to GOD later. I mean why should BANKS get rich on interest why you give money to GOD?

WHO would YOU rather pay interest to?! (Shh.... don't guess if you don't know.) Seriously why not say you are "borrowing back" your owed 10% now. You can figure out a nice interest rate and prepare to pay it back later.

Yeah, I know the value in giving continually, sorta keep up a reminder of what we owe for our goof fortunes, but if you gotta tith all the time, best to scale it as 10% of "disposable" income rather than from the start.

Disposable income is a funny term, but I mean money left over after paying needed expenses for food and shelter PLUS debt repayments. So my choice to give MORE to repay debt means I have less to tith to GOD now and more later.

And on with disposable income, even being a nebulous category, it does open questions. I tend to think about life by "minimizing needed" expenses and investing in ways that reduce my needed future income. So home ownership looks good when the mortgage is paid. Energy efficient windows are good because they reduce future energy bills. Good stuff like that.

A cool show I watched sometime (like Frontline or something) talked about the vast amounts of money laundered through the illegal drug trade. I thought it seemed like the greatest antidrug message there was, at least for me. Paying for drugs mean concentrating wealth and power in the hands of people who work beneath the law to expand their wealth and power no matter who they hurt. So every $1 I give to a drug dealer perhaps creates $10 in human misery in the future because it encourages more of itself - like throwing fuel on a fire.

I don't know if it would work. I can hold a similar vision over participating in the fossil fuel trade - everything you consume that consumes fossil fuels is concentrating wealth in the hands of people trying to expand their wealth and power no matter who they hurt (i.e. like future generations who must deal with the global warming we causes.)

Well, nothing very profound, and I've already admitted I hold a great esteem for the engineers and scientists who have created the vast exploitation scheme that support us so well, so far. But in the bigger picture, you have to wonder how things'll end up.

Back to the start, I don't see tithing has any direct influence over things. It all seems like a big lie - like the thief tithing 10% of his loot. You know, when you're stealing from the future, you're not really giving God anything.

SO, Mr. Complainer, what are we to do?

Hmmmm... My original thought actually was something more bold - like telling everyone to practice living on 50% of their income and burning the rest as a sacrifice to GOD. It's again sort of funny, and I'm sure the Churches will disagree, unless they get their 10% already.

SO, that's my outrageous tithe - something I can imagine because I can earn much more than I need - except for my mortgage. Always exceptions, but just playing games, wondering what would happen.

Its outrageous from all sides, but just seems interesting because the whole system is outrageous - the insane debt all over - the insane ambitions for infinite economic growth - the insane consumption of resources. Doing something outrageous or even imagining it almost seems to give perspective to the insanity in which we live. YES, I'm awed by our power, but more scared.

The meek won't really inherit the earth, by the way. Sorry, Jesus was just story telling, like me.

Peak oil, peak energy, peak technology, peak affluence, peak population

Well, I must admit I am in awe by the willingness of humanity to tackle really hard problems. I think about this as I watched a presentation on how engineers try to model bore holes for drilling deep oil. The technology used is astounding and the data they can measure is equally astounding, even if still far inadequate for full understanding.

I wonder how they can 'afford' to put so much effort into these pursuits and the answer is of course high density energy offers a huge pay off when successful. So investing in massive machinery and data gathering and modeling are all worthwhile.

Well, that's the question - how long will it be worthwhile and who's paying attention to the dependency our annual lottery payments provide and what will we do when the wells run dry?

Yes, there's plenty of oil in the ground, if you're talking decades, but definitely not centuries. I'm sure there's plenty of more energy we can exploit in the future, but a part of me will always doubt that we can always find a higher step just when it is needed. I'm content to believe we may be at the top step now and we'll be fighting diminishing returns for the next century as we can, and at some point, we'll have to call it a day and chagce course. In such a vision, I wonder why not change sooner than later?

This isn't a special vision, but it is a costly one. How can anyone compete against the bottom line and take a higher one? Whatever Al Gore and the optimists say, the future can not have the affluence we know now, at least not for the masses. The pyramid must flatten and steepen at the same time - as the top try to hold their status and the middle gets squeezed down to the bottom. It won't look pretty.

A democracy will let this happen as long as a critical mass has hope. Hope unfortunately lasts longer than reason.

I'm astounded, and tired to think the fights ahead, glad's there's people fighting to keep what we have, but also glad others are looking for other models of success.