And the most liberal city and most conservative city

[Alyssa M.]

It gives people false value so they spend more and that uses more energy.

... Not if you make up the difference through taxes. Not if there's so much worldwide demand that it's unaffordable not to conserve. It will happen -- energy consumption will go down, at least consumption based on emitting CO2. The question is, will it go down because we've burned every last bit of coal and oil and natural gas we can find? Or will we make it too expensive some other way before we get to that point, and thus avoid the absolute worst effects of the mass extinction resulting from very significantly altering athmospheric and oceanic chemistry?

One simple proposal that would be a big step forward: set the minimum pump price to be $4/gallon, starting two years from now; tax rates could be based on price of crude and refining to make this happen. Make the pump price go up by inflation plus 7.2% every year (so it doubles every ten years, even after inflation). Then people will actually conserve, just like they did last summer when prices went up.

Ethanol: cellulosic ethanol has the promise to be a vast, vast improvement, and simply uses what is now waste product. Just one small part of the picture. The one part of the picture that has been missing, and the one that holds the key to anything else working is that we continue to subsidize rather than tax carbon-based energy. It's quite simple: We need to pretend that we'll run out of petroleum in the year 2030, not 2100.

[lisagurl]

Not if you tax the remainder

Taxes have rarely worked as they are expected, just like new technology. The sharp lawyers that are smarter than the law makers figure out how to circumvent taxes for their own profit. Take Al Gore and his carbon credits for example.

Methane and other greenhouse gases will increase with population. Look at China's smog problem due partly to their cooking fuel. In the U.S. many cities had wood smoke problems before oil and gas. We will need more electricity which demands coal also and clean coal is not clean. Just the building of a nuke plant creates a lot of CO2, not to mention all the cooling water, waste and mining issues.
As the population increases we see less forests and wet lands our natural filters. The oceans are almost fished out. It takes lots of energy to farm fish. Plastics create another problem and deposit tax and or recycling has not keep billions of tons out of the ocean. Just about every plastic product has a short life to the consumer, not to mention the chemical problems to health and environment, more population will only magnify that issue. Many past mining operations such as in Montana cost more to clean up than the lifetime out put of the mine. Which makes Montana having one of the lowest per capita income in the country. Australia has killed its dry environment and then added non indigenous species that have no natural control. They can not support any more population.

[Michelle.]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20090612/ts_usnews/howtheglobalwarmingbillwillaffectyourwallet

Earliest estimate of make Al Gore filthy rich cap and trade, $1600 per American family per year.

Ah, the programs that could pay for though.

[Alyssa M.]

Yes, obviously it's a big problem. Population is a big problem ... elsewhere, i.e. where it's actually increasing. I'm aware of that. So what? Are you saying we should (1) give up (2) exterminate half the population of the planet or (3) something else? Based on your statements, I really have no clue what you think would be the best course of action. Look: for any kind of tax or regulation, you will have people trying to circumvent it. But I don't see a whole lot of gas stations avoiding taxes in America or Europe right now. With your reasoning, you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Michelle -- I really don't care how much money Al Gore makes, nor do I understand (or care) how Al Gore would collect a  windfall from cap and trade. How on earth is an ad hominem attack against some guy who doesn't even hold political office remotely relevant? Contrariwise, what about all Dick Cheney's oil money? Failing to cap and trade gives Cheney lots of cash -- see, another vice president cashing in.

But the current system costs a LOT more than that, or will soon. Who should that $1600 of cash from the hard-working American taxpayer go to? The governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuala? Or Uncle Sam? "Neither" is not a possibility. Or should we just keep pumping it into the next unnecessary war that we start because we're freaked out that "they hate us" because we support the Saudi government because we're so dependent on their oil? Ah, the programs we wouldn't need to pay for if it weren't for our utter dependence on foreign oil.

All right -- I'm done, because if I continue, I won't get enough sleep for my mountain tomorrow.

[Michelle.]

Al Gore cashing in on carbon-offsets and the like take your pick... http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=al+gore+cap+and+trade&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 
I've even read articles, Wall Street Journal?, that show his "interest" in what would be the future exchange board for such a system. It just seems convienent that the man who has been championing the whole global warming bit is one of the ones who stands to make 100's of millions of dollars.

Cheney and oil people. I would very much like to see an investigation into if, and how, the crude futures market could have been "fixed" last year. Most, if not all. commodities are physical possesion... not paper trades. A basic reform of that market would be to require that a successful bid for a contract result in holding at least 10% of said crude.

About population, see this prior post of mine:

"Thats a fallacy, a very large one. Then again, "repeat a lie, preferably a big lie often enough. And the people will believe the lie." That quote is from Adolf Hitler, who like the rest of the radical socialists advocated mass extermination of human populations. Current estimates of future populations show that world pop. over time will even out to be roughly some 12-15 billion people. A sustainable number, as will be the current standard of living enjoyed in western nations.

We need not go back to the stone age, or exterminate large groups of humanity."

I think the last sentence speaks for itself.

About foreign oil. We can, and should, be off foreign oil in as little as 10 years max 20 yrs. That though would take, God forbid, actually increasing drilling and refienery capacity domestically.

That $1600 figure is what it will cost the average family ABOVE what they pay now, its not a transfer/zero sum figure.

A final note on oil, somewhere around 50% of oil used is used to manufacture goods. Your shampoo bottle, tuperware, computer case... plastics.

Also enjoy the mountain... just keep in mind if the radical environmentalists have their way it will cost a small fortune to climb it in the future.

[Miniar]

On the topic of the population.
In many countries, people aren't producing enough offspring to keep the work-force populated through the next 30-50 years.

[DarkLady]

Al Gore cashing in on carbon-offsets and the like take your pick... http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=al+gore+cap+and+trade&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 
I've even read articles, Wall Street Journal?, that show his "interest" in what would be the future exchange board for such a system. It just seems convienent that the man who has been championing the whole global warming bit is one of the ones who stands to make 100's of millions of dollars.

Cheney and oil people. I would very much like to see an investigation into if, and how, the crude futures market could have been "fixed" last year. Most, if not all. commodities are physical possesion... not paper trades. A basic reform of that market would be to require that a successful bid for a contract result in holding at least 10% of said crude.

About population, see this prior post of mine:

"Thats a fallacy, a very large one. Then again, "repeat a lie, preferably a big lie often enough. And the people will believe the lie." That quote is from Adolf Hitler, who like the rest of the radical socialists advocated mass extermination of human populations. Current estimates of future populations show that world pop. over time will even out to be roughly some 12-15 billion people. A sustainable number, as will be the current standard of living enjoyed in western nations.

We need not go back to the stone age, or exterminate large groups of humanity."

I think the last sentence speaks for itself.

About foreign oil. We can, and should, be off foreign oil in as little as 10 years max 20 yrs. That though would take, God forbid, actually increasing drilling and refienery capacity domestically.

That $1600 figure is what it will cost the average family ABOVE what they pay now, its not a transfer/zero sum figure.

A final note on oil, somewhere around 50% of oil used is used to manufacture goods. Your shampoo bottle, tuperware, computer case... plastics.

Also enjoy the mountain... just keep in mind if the radical environmentalists have their way it will cost a small fortune to climb it in the future.

Yea. Adolf Hitler was a ''radical socialist''. His main rivals were socialists and he used word ''national socialist'' just for propaganda.

[lisagurl]

I really have no clue what you think would be the best course of action.

The place to start is to recognize the problem. That is something leaders refuse to address because it is a political suicide.

Population control has got to start with reduced procreation. China experimented with it and found problems such as one sided sex choice.  Limiting expensive resource wasting medical procedures on people who do not want to live would be a choice. Allowing one to end their life another. These are all moral issues that go against religious beliefs that put life above everything. Tackling the religious problem is the main stumbling block, that will, if not faced lead the world to much suffering.

In many countries, people aren't producing enough offspring to keep the work-force populated through the next 30-50 years

That is not the problem, consumption is the problem.

[DarkLady]

And then the third pplace cities:
3rd liberal: Berkeley, CA   (Yes, that Berkeley with People's Park)
3rd conservative: Abilene, TX

[Kara]

That's Detroit? Really? Holy crap.

[xsocialworker]

Heres an interesting link, from the UK Telegraph newspaper by way of the Drudge Report.

Apparently the Obama Admin is considering bulldozing large portions of US cities that are in decline.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html

Cool ------actually it was THE REPUBLICAN PARTY that devised this plan for New Orleans after Katrina.

I have to admit, I actually find myself agreeing with his Greatness.
Whatever totalitarian schemes you think Obama is hatching-------Bush hatched them first

Post Merge: June 14, 2009, 10:41:28 PM
I think it is pathetic when so many people identifying as gender varient are spouting this neocon nonsense

[Michelle.]

Yeah and it was a good idea than also.

Build and than rebuild a city in what amounts to an underground bathtub.

Makes perfect economic sense to me.

[xsocialworker]

THE POINT IN NOT REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS WAS TO TRY AND KEEP IT MOSTLY WHITE SO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE STATE>

[lisagurl]

THE POINT IN NOT REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS WAS TO TRY AND KEEP IT MOSTLY WHITE SO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE STATE>

I thought that it made sense for it to go back to wet lands and help filter some of the fertilizer that has made a dead zone of more than 100 miles in the gulf.

[Alyssa M.]

Michelle,
First of all, I was referring to Lisa's comments regarding the population problem I agree that it is completely solvable -- although we need to get over the completely false notion of "sustainable growth" -- the only "sustainable" growth rate is zero. But your Hitler quote is about as blatant a violation of Godwin's Law (or its corrolary, anyway) as I've ever seen. Who cares what Hitler (or Cheney or Gore) say? You are making a combination ad hominem and straw man argument. It just isn't relevant. The point is that it's not clear whether 12 to 15 billion people really is sustainable, or whether instead that number of people would lead to lots and lots of wars and famine and disease and ... well, pretty much what we have right now. Certainly 15 billion people can't consume at the rates of the average person in the Western world -- today's 6 billion can't even continue to consume at current rates for many more decades. That $1600 is going to look like a bargain the way oil prices will go if we try. Even if the world had enough petroleum and the world could handle the CO2, American oil will never be able to replace foreign imports. There's just not enough to replace what we're getting from Saudi Arabia. In other words, we can let supply dry up and have nothing in place and a much worse mass extinction event than we see already ... or we can pretend that supply has already started to dried up.

Radical enviros? Nope, no worries about them, by and large. Sure, there are a few that want to restrict access by foot in some places (such as my local open space authority that recently added some red tape to go off-trail in some places that I love to bushwhack, and close more rocks than seems reasonable for raptor nesting for over half the year), and I think the FLREA is a complete boondoggle (but that's the fault of Bush and the "market-oriented" Republicans controlling Congress when it passed and USFS bureaucreats). That I have to pay to access one of my favorite ares during the summer -- even if I show up at 3:00 a.m., even if I bike there from a nearby town -- does not endear the USFS to me. But overall, access is much better today than it has really ever been before, thanks to the Nature Conservancy, Access Fund, Sierra Club, etc. The small fee I had to pay for a permit to climb Mt. Shasta and similar fees for very overcrowded peaks (Rainier, etc.) and the fees for mountaineering in poor places with high mountains (Kenya, the Himalaya and Karakorum, the Andes) are completely reasonable to keep the mountains relatively unmarred or to give a small boost to local economies. Most mountaineers agree.

Lisa -- thanks, that answered my question. I'm convinced that supporting a decent education system for all people (most imprtantly women) is the best and most effective solution to the population problem.

[xsocialworker]

The Republicans only care about elections and playing to their "base". No TG can be part of this group by definition.

[Michelle.]

"Lisa -- thanks, that answered my question.  I'm convinced that supporting a decent education system for all people (most imprtantly women) is the best and most effective solution to the population problem."-- by Alyssa.

I admit that I made a deliberate use of "Goddwins Law," in attempt to see just where Lisa was going with the population growth issue. Sometimes "shock" value has its benefits. Real quick. If where moving anywhere along a fascist model it would be along the lines of "corporate fascism."

The oil consumption issue, I think that T. Boone Pickens has good ideas in regards to that particular issue.

Cap and trade,to me,= cap and tax.

You mentioned empowering women. The trend and growth of the "micro-loan" industry is helping to address that problem. Also, I believe, the website "girl power dot com" has good ideas re: unleashing the power of women to change 3rd world societies thru education. I could be wrong on the website name, a problem of recall on my part.

About global warming. Didn't Las Vegas get 6 inches of snow this winter? The Dakotas, Canada, and the mid-west regions have to yet reach summer temps. Also I beleive that no less than 3 confrences on the issue of global warming were all but snowed out this past winter. Glaciers in South America, Argentina, are growing.

Enough for now, this has been an interesting thread.

Mich'

[lisagurl]

The oil consumption issue, I think that T. Boone Pickens has good ideas in regards to that particular issue

Have you investigated Pickens?

Pickens is out for Pickens alone and does not care a flip about society. His government supported windmills is a shame for the real purpose of getting right of ways to put a pipeline from the water rights he bought in west Texas to empty the aquifer and sell it to the big cities. It would be stealing to empty the Texas aquifer that is very slow to fill. It will leave west Texas totally barren. This is a prime example of using resources faster than they can recover. It would be better to reduce the Texas population than add wind mills and exhaust the natural gas supply driving to price up so Pickens could profit. Remember the natural gas shortage a few years ago? Then when they said they had plenty and build gas turbine generators the gas price tripled and those generators could not afford to compete with coal.

[Michelle.]

Start building the desalinization plants ASAP.

To clarify T.Boone... his proposal to switch to natural gas interests me the most.

Also we need to update the US power grid. Now that would be one heckova stimulus project. The Fed's could finance the project and than auction off the distribution rights to the various utility companies.

[lisagurl]

Start building the desalinization plants ASAP

Then where do we get the energy and where do we dispose of the toxic waste?
Post Merge: June 16, 2009, 02:45:31 PM

To clarify T.Boone... his proposal to switch to natural gas interests me the most.

Natural gas is very limited like oil. It is just that he holds a lot of gas rights. Gas is also seasonal. So summer gas is cheaper. If you start to power transportation with natural gas the price will sky rocket. It still puts carbon into the air. Gas could be used for Air Conditioning but the price is not competitive with electricity.
Post Merge: June 16, 2009, 03:52:09 PM

Also we need to update the US power grid. Now that would be one heckova stimulus project. The Fed's could finance the project and than auction off the distribution rights to the various utility companies

It take lots of maintenance to keep a grid working. Also the longer the lines the greater the loss. Not to mention people especially CA do not want them in their back yard as there is also EMF. The Feds control the price of wheeling most power companies can not recoup their maintenance costs from wheeling charges.  How the companies make money is buying on one side and reselling on the other at a much inflated price. Remember Enron?