View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Steve Lunetta: The carbon tax has flaws

Posted: June 26, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: June 26, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

A recent column by Cher Gilmore touted the brilliance and benefits of taxing carbon output from business as a way to reduce global climate change.

The source of her information was a recent 126-page report by Regional Economic Models Inc., or REMI, a climate change think tank.

The report gushes that if we tax carbon output, 2.1 million jobs will be created, carbon dioxide emissions will decrease 33 percent, and 13,000 premature deaths will be avoided.

And peace will reign in the Middle East. The Chicago Cubs will win the World Series. Broccoli will become the favorite food of children everywhere. Bullying will instantly stop (except when Hart plays football). Nose hair will no longer grow.

And a Democrat will win a congressional seat in the SCV.

Yeah, right. To say I was a bit skeptical is putting it mildly.

Here is how the tax would work. If you make carbon dioxide (burn something, make something, etc.), you will be charged 10 bucks per metric ton of CO2 released starting in 2016. That amount will be bumped up 10 bucks every year after.

The government takes this tax (errr, “fee”) and returns 100 percent of it to consumers in the form of a rebate check. This will cause all of these rosy predictions to happen.

I went ahead and downloaded the report referenced by Gilmore to read it for myself. I secretly wonder if liberals and Democrats actually read these things and not just the CNN Cliff Notes versions.

Needless to say, there are numerous flaws with the logic behind the report disqualifying it as a serious reference for anything useful. Let’s look at it.

Flaw No. 1: The report assumes that increasing taxes will “influence earlier retirements of coal plants” and early investments in clean energy like nuclear, gas, wind, and solar (page 6).

The problem, of course, is that if energy companies are allowed to pass on the costs of this new tax onto their customers (us), where is the incentive to retire/invest?

If it’s revenue-neutral to the energy producers, why do they care?

Costs will be reflected directly in increased heating fuels, transportation costs, lighting and other utilities. Indirect costs will also hit retail products like food and household goods.

Ah, but that is where the scheme gets really good.

Flaw No. 2: Consumers will obtain a rebate check depending on household size to get back the added costs of the tax.

So if costs go up but then get covered by the rebate check, where is the benefit?

Many of you recall that the senior George Bush tried a similar trick a few years ago right before an election.

Withholding was changed to put more money in our checks, but the tax rate was not modified.

Essentially, we were being bribed with our own money. Most of us did not fall for the trick and just modified our deductions.

The same trick is being employed here.

Flaw No. 3: Employment will rise an astounding 2.1 million jobs due primarily to increases in health care, social assistance, finance, insurance, and retail.

Why? Because we are going to take those rebate checks and burn them frivolously and not pay our increasing bills.

Seriously. This is what the writers of this report think. Page 65 of the report says that new consumer spending is going to fuel this economic boom.

Flaw No. 4: The report states “carbon taxes ... mean to help markets internalize the negative externalities unrealized by the parties directly involved” (page 11).

Translation: we know what is better for you and will interfere with your life until you bend to our will, you stupid sheep.

The assumption is that businesses and people will not make good economic choices and must be forced to do so.

This is socialism at its core.

Flaw No. 5: The tax rebate is designed to be progressive, using a murky rationale regarding family size to send a greater percentage of the refund to those in the lower economic income brackets (page 36).

So if you are unfortunate enough to be in the middle or upper income brackets, you rebate will be reduced and you will not recover your fair share of the carbon tax.

You guessed it, folks. Wealth redistribution. Once again, another play straight out of Marxist and socialist handbooks.

With so many flaws, it is hard to understand how so many can be deceived by this report. Get the report and read it for yourself.

This is the game plan of the far left and those that have been tricked by the man-induced climate change propaganda machine.

Steve Lunetta is a resident of Placerita Canyon and has his solar panels humming along nicely. Go ahead and send my check, Mr. Obama. He can be reached at slunetta63@yahoo.com.

 

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: June 26, 2014 9:04 a.m.

I have never heard of this proposal and I'm not going to get all frothy over something that isn't happening. People, at some point, will figure out that the Extraction Industries and the GOP have been lying to them and that we have spoiled our nest beyond the point where it can be restored. Then the anger will look for a target.


ronos: Posted: June 26, 2014 6:51 p.m.

Who needs climate science when you have the Bible and Fox News ?


CaptGene: Posted: June 26, 2014 8:33 p.m.

Thanks Steve, just like they say: "if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is".


tech: Posted: June 26, 2014 8:56 p.m.

Who needs rational policy analysis when you have ronos and straw men?


Indy: Posted: June 26, 2014 8:58 p.m.

It’s always nice to read the ramblings of a true die hard religious conservative that places beliefs and ideology over science and reality.

Understandably, rebutting the ideology is difficult since conservatives place their ‘value’ system above all else. But there are guest readers that need to understand the misconceptions, falsehoods, and misstatements in this Op-ed.

Let’s start at with the first assertion:

Lunetta writes: Flaw No. 1: The report assumes that increasing taxes will “influence earlier retirements of coal plants” and early investments in clean energy like nuclear, gas, wind, and solar (page 6).
The problem, of course, is that if energy companies are allowed to pass on the costs of this new tax onto their customers (us), where is the incentive to retire/invest?
If it’s revenue-neutral to the energy producers, why do they care?
Costs will be reflected directly in increased heating fuels, transportation costs, lighting and other utilities. Indirect costs will also hit retail products like food and household goods.

Indy: From what I see here, the writer assumes the readers like me have no other access to knowledge that isn’t ideology based.

It’s absolutely true that raising cost to curb coal will be passed to the consumer. That’s never even been an issue. You want a benefit, you pay for it. That’s just basic capitalism . . . surprising that this Op-ed writer hasn’t discovered that yet . . .

As far as the cost of fuels go and the related effects, this has more to do with the ‘ecological footprint’ that mankind is putting on this ‘fixed rock in space’. In other words, as the human population has grown to 7+ billion people, our ‘waste products’ including the exhaust gases from coals plants (heavy metals including mercury, combustion products including CO2) have passed the limits of the environment to absorb and recycle them.

This is why the CO2 concentration is rising as the environment can’t absorb the waste product without causing other damages that are ‘costs’ to us including the consequences of global warming including increased droughts, more powerful storms, and the melting of our global glaciers many of which supply needed water for farming and human consumption globally.

If you’re going to listen to somebody like this guy, you better do you own homework to discover the items he’s cleverly forgotten to mention. Why? Anything that degrades his assertions is something that he’ll purposely ignore. Sad, isn’t it? Don’t you want ‘full disclosure’ on topics like this?

We’ll get on with the next issue next post . . . but for a good site that summarizes and actually does explain things on climate change without leaving out things, go to: www.skepticalscience.com


CaptGene: Posted: June 26, 2014 9:00 p.m.

What a remarkable pile of jibberish, even by Indy Nile standards.


Indy: Posted: June 26, 2014 9:05 p.m.

Lunetta writes: Flaw No. 2: Consumers will obtain a rebate check depending on household size to get back the added costs of the tax.
So if costs go up but then get covered by the rebate check, where is the benefit? Many of you recall that the senior George Bush tried a similar trick a few years ago right before an election. Withholding was changed to put more money in our checks, but the tax rate was not modified. Essentially, we were being bribed with our own money. Most of us did not fall for the trick and just modified our deductions. The same trick is being employed here.

Indy: I do agree that there should be no ‘hiding’ the costs for addressing climate change. This has sad been a problem with both parties in the White House where they keep promising the public ‘unlimited’ growth on this, again, ‘fixed rock in space’.

A better approach to addressing the cost issue for climate change should start by addressing the ‘drivers’ of same . . . including the over population issue.

Our tax code is distorted in that offering the ‘child deduction’ subsidy that both parties favor actually encourages over population that leads to greater environmental issues including climate change.

As more people demand more energy, and that energy is being today obtained for burning more fossil fuels, we get even more combustion pollution including CO2.

There’s no reason to ‘trick’ the public but sadly, both parties play this game. Rather than educating the public, we get pandering recitals much in the same vein as this Op-ed.

Why disrespect the public for political gain? Is that now the ‘American way’ of democracy?

Not for me it isn’t.

We don’t need tricks . . . we need sound policy based on reproducible results.


tech: Posted: June 26, 2014 9:28 p.m.

"We don’t need tricks . . . we need sound policy based on reproducible results." - Indy

Policy like this "to achieve ecological balance and social justice", Indy?

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/deep-green-why-de-growth-an-interview/blog/35467/


ricketzz: Posted: June 27, 2014 9:53 a.m.

The antisocial elite class doesn't like to hear "social justice" because they know they will be found lacking in same.

"The problem for our society is not that these ideas are too complex or wrong, but that they are annoying and inconvenient for the wealthy and powerful. Everyone wants more. Millionaires want to be a billionaires. The more that individuals grab and horde, the less there is for everyone. On the other hand, as we learn to share and live modestly, our ecosystems can recover and provide us with nature’s bounty. The best way for poor nations to avoid deeper poverty is to protect their ecosystems from plunder.
The Degrowth movement advocates richer, more rewarding lives with less material stuff. Our economic efforts should focus on providing basic needs to everyone in the human family, rather than enriching a few, while others starve.

Beyond basic necessities, happiness does not come from consuming more stuff.

Happiness comes from friends, family, community, creativity, leisure, love, companionship, and time spent in nature. These things can grow without much material throughput. These are the qualities of life we should be helping to grow." -Greenpeace (via Tech cite above).


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 27, 2014 10:54 a.m.

Indy- companies act to maximize profit. That is economics 101. If a company can pass along an expense to their customers, they will gladly do so. In fact, some will increase the "pass-thru" to obtain more profit and blame the source of the added expense.

Energy sources will change when in becomes cost prohibitive to acquire the energy. That is what drives innovation in the energy industry, not some artifical tax dreamed up by socialists with no economic or business sense.

BTW- what does religion have to do with this? Once again, another non sequitor.


tech: Posted: June 27, 2014 11:37 a.m.

Please confirm you're in full agreement with the Greenpeace degrowth policy, ricketzz.


Indy: Posted: June 27, 2014 9:20 p.m.

C(omedy)aptG(old)ene wrote: What a remarkable pile of jibberish, even by Indy Nile standards.

Indy: Notice the poster can’t make even one rebuttal, one actual remark concerning the issue other that it’s just bad, bad, bad . . . but hey, ‘it’s comedy gold’!

Just imagine, however, that the republicans in congress know little more than this guy . . . frightened? You should be . . . considering what’s at stake!


Indy: Posted: June 27, 2014 9:33 p.m.

Lunetta wrote: Flaw No. 3: Employment will rise an astounding 2.1 million jobs due primarily to increases in health care, social assistance, finance, insurance, and retail.
Why? Because we are going to take those rebate checks and burn them frivolously and not pay our increasing bills.
Seriously. This is what the writers of this report think. Page 65 of the report says that new consumer spending is going to fuel this economic boom.

Indy: Anyone that has followed politics ‘knows’ that employment projections are speculative.

In any event, transferring the dollars from the carbon tax away from the fossil fuel industry puts those dollars actually into the US economy versus those dollars flowing ‘off shore’. There’s the ‘economic spurt’ here in the US versus going to multinationals who now keep that spending off shore as well as the profits generated from same.

The remarks here from Lunetta would be easier to address if he provided more data to support his assertions.

Anyway, the promise of politicians from any party that costs to the public on anything will be reduced is just nonsense. Energy prices that form the foundation for economic activity, will not be going down.

Recognizing, however, the costs of the environmental externalities that are ignored by conservative economist is misleading the public to this reality.


Indy: Posted: June 27, 2014 10:09 p.m.

Lunetta wrote: Flaw No. 4: The report states “carbon taxes ... mean to help markets internalize the negative externalities unrealized by the parties directly involved” (page 11).
Translation: we know what is better for you and will interfere with your life until you bend to our will, you stupid sheep. The assumption is that businesses and people will not make good economic choices and must be forced to do so. This is socialism at its core.

Indy: Understandably, when citizens try to plan for our common future using our government, that’s quickly dismissed by comments like ‘we know what is better for you’.

The reality is that Lunetta’s plan for our future is just as one sided if you will but also ignores the consequences of anthropologic climate change.

The bigger issue here is that the public isn’t fully informed on the climate change issue made understandably by the horrifically distorted information being put forth by the fossil fuel industry that is using the ‘tobacco industry’ model from 20 years ago . . . remember when they were running commercials that said ‘smoking was good for you’!

In any event, for consumers to make good economic conditions requires the dissemination of knowledge based information versus clever sounding ‘slogans’ paid for by the oil companies.

And of course, anytime we as citizens decide our ‘own’ future, we accused as socialists. This is sadly the tired, worn out, and useless slogan that doesn’t allow us to make a future for ‘we the people’ versus the conservative value of ‘we the money’.


Indy: Posted: June 27, 2014 10:18 p.m.

Lunetta wrote: Flaw No. 5: The tax rebate is designed to be progressive, using a murky rationale regarding family size to send a greater percentage of the refund to those in the lower economic income brackets (page 36).
So if you are unfortunate enough to be in the middle or upper income brackets, you rebate will be reduced and you will not recover your fair share of the carbon tax.
You guessed it, folks. Wealth redistribution. Once again, another play straight out of Marxist and socialist handbooks.

Indy: Without reading the report, I’m not sure who extensive the rebates will be.

But as we’ve seen here in the Signal for years, when I bring up the problem with ‘fixed tax’ rates and the ability of any family to send “UNLMITED” children to public education, I’m still amazed that fiscal conservative can grasp the concept of ‘demand more, pay more’.

In any event, we’re already witnessing ‘wealth distribution’ as the top 1% of income earners now take 20% of all income . . . up from just 8% in 1980.

It is clever for conservatives to ‘flip’ the issue for their benefit but it requires that you ‘IGNORE’ the current wealth redistribution to the top earners.

In any event, it’s time again for the ‘socialism definition’ so we can see how the definition is abused by conservatives to support their ideology and value positions.


Indy: Posted: June 27, 2014 10:19 p.m.

Since it’s quite popular to constantly criticize any government program for having its asserted roots in the conservative ideology position put forth as socialism, I’m going to paste this explanation every time I see the ‘quick quip’ that distorts the definition of socialism for political gain.

Here’s the definition:

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


No progressive I know of or heard in the last 35 years of my adult life promotes government ‘taking over’ the ownership of the ‘private sector’. This is a distortion.

Additionally, government ‘safety net’ programs (think unemployment insurance) designed to ‘cushion’ the harshness of ‘market fundamentalism’ by providing working people some margin of error in the swings in the economy (thing recessions) actually ‘promote’ more risk in the marketplace by giving workers some leeway in taking new jobs or making their own jobs better.

You’d never know this by the ‘quick quips’ offered up here to support ‘market fundamentalism’.

Likewise, regulating the private sector in a manner that promotes fairness, a level playing field and competition not to mention correcting areas where business ‘abuses’ its trust with its customers, is not advocating the ‘control’ of a business.

We as a society have a voice in the ways business is conducted in our nation. Our legal system is a testament to that voice. Additionally, since businesses continually try to ‘cheat’ each other for one reason or another, this is but further proof why our courts, based on laws created by society, are even beneficial to the businesses themselves by upholding contractual agreements at taxpayer expense!

In any event, we can’t solve our nation’s problems by simply reciting ‘focus group tested’ slogans that give the reader little knowledge or backstory that doesn’t provide them the intelligence to hold their elected politicians accountable for sound decisions and judgment.


Indy: Posted: June 27, 2014 10:26 p.m.

Tech wrote: "We don’t need tricks . . . we need sound policy based on reproducible results." - Indy

Policy like this "to achieve ecological balance and social justice", Indy?

Indy: Yes, exactly.

We want an economic system that allows for hard work but likewise balances that with fairness that insures equal opportunity for all, protections of individual freedom, and provide economic security for all . . .


Indy: Posted: June 27, 2014 10:40 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: Indy- companies act to maximize profit. That is economics 101. If a company can pass along an expense to their customers, they will gladly do so. In fact, some will increase the "pass-thru" to obtain more profit and blame the source of the added expense.

Indy: Yes, I think Americans value the idea that if you want something, you should pay for it.

AlwaysRight wrote: Energy sources will change when in becomes cost prohibitive to acquire the energy. That is what drives innovation in the energy industry, not some artificial tax dreamed up by socialists with no economic or business sense.

Indy: The reality that many can’t understand is the concept of ‘market share’ and ‘stranded assets’.

The fossil fuel industry will as you note, maximize profits in the short run while discharging any responsibility for energy security in the long run. This is unacceptable.

Further, we need to realize the economic externality costs of burning fossil fuels ‘today’ . . . thus the carbon tax.

I can only suggest that you reread the definition of ‘socialism’ versus the definition that conservative use to distort our political discourse.

AlwaysRight wrote BTW- what does religion have to do with this? Once again, another non sequitor.

Indy: Religion drives most conservatives . . . just look at the guy that unseated congressman Cantor noting his victory was provided by God.

Overcoming the shortcomings of many religious norms is the greatest challenge facing mankind. Religious conservatives sadly can’t move beyond the beliefs they hold that no longer map to the modern world.

I want policy based on ‘reproducible’ results that we can ‘see’ versus policy that is either ideology or beliefs based.


tech: Posted: June 28, 2014 12:13 a.m.

"…provide economic security for all . . . " - Indy

Only for those who have the ability and the opportunity to work and contribute to our society. No free riders. Provender for those who truly cannot provide for themselves.

"Social justice" and many of the concepts in that Greenpeace policy document are corrosive to societal progress. They guarantee less opportunity and equality for all.

"Overcoming the shortcomings of many religious norms is the greatest challenge facing mankind." - Indy

Wrong. Overcoming the natural condition of humanity, i.e. poverty and enslavement, is the greatest challenge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxo8usuMnuM


tech: Posted: June 28, 2014 12:25 a.m.

Policy like this "to achieve ecological balance and social justice", Indy?

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/deep-green-why-de-growth-an-interview/blog/35467/

Indy: Yes, exactly.

Good to have you on record of supporting this degrowth policy document.


ricketzz: Posted: June 28, 2014 9:57 a.m.

I am 1,000% behind the Greenpeace "Degrowth" Policy. Humility is the road to heaven. We had perfect government prior to 1492.
--edited.


ricketzz: Posted: June 28, 2014 9:59 a.m.

Materialism is the opposite of spirituality. That's why Jesus said it's really hard for rich people to achieve Nirvana.


tech: Posted: June 28, 2014 1:20 p.m.

Thanks, ricketzz. It's important for participants in these forums understand the dystopic future you and Indy envision.

Now we have a reference document.

"We had perfect government prior to 1492." - ricketzz

Warfare, Intertribal

Intertribal warfare consists of the conflicts between various Native American groups, as opposed to warfare between Native Americans and Europeans. With the notable exception of rich oral historical accounts, a good deal of the information on this topic remains conjectural, due primarily to the dearth of evidence left by indigenous sources in many instances and by the fact that the arrival of non-Natives in any region altered the manner and the purpose of intertribal conflicts. Native groups fought for many reasons. Moreover, while there was not one overarching form of warfare among all American aboriginal cultures, there were certain commonalities. These encompassed, but were not limited to, the tactics employed and the desired ends of most conflicts. A full treatment is beyond the scope of the present article, so all that will be presented here is a general overview.

Among the reasons various Native American tribes fought against one another were security, revenge, honor, pride, and the capture of booty. Making war for security's sake could be either defensive or preemptive. Revenge entailed the counterattack of the aggrieved tribe and could spawn a whole cycle of violence as in the case of the Mourning War among the Iroquois. In this type of warfare, attacks and reprisals were made to fill the gap made by losses in the community. Likewise, captives taken in raids could be adopted into the tribe as a means to fill the gap as well. Numerous Native American groups made war on one another as a means for their younger warriors to gain honor and to prove their abilities as leaders. The acquisition of honor worked to complement the gain of pride. Warriors might take the scalps of those they had killed in battle, both for spiritual purposes and as a token of their martial abilities. Likewise, booty, captured on a raid, both provided material support for the tribe and demonstrated the prowess of the warrior who had taken it. Wars could also be fought over territory and resources, as was the case in the Beaver Wars. Tokens of martial ability stand as one of the commonalities of intertribal warfare.

Tactics were an area in which there was a great deal of commonality among Native American societies. The basic tactical unit in intertribal warfare was the raiding party or war party, although there is evidence of massed armies as well. The main differentiating factor is size. Raiding parties were small groups that went out to settle petty issues between individuals of different tribes. War parties comprised at least the entire force of a single tribe and often its allies.

http://www.historyandtheheadlines.abc-clio.com/ContentPages/ContentPage.aspx?entryId=1171775&currentSection=1161468


Indy: Posted: June 28, 2014 11:54 p.m.

Tech wrote: "…provide economic security for all . . . " - Indy

Only for those who have the ability and the opportunity to work and contribute to our society. No free riders. Provender for those who truly cannot provide for themselves.

Indy: The poster contradicts himself but does do well to stand the conservative ‘value’ of ‘hard work’ while simply ignoring the economics factors in play.

When ‘hard working’ people lose their jobs from the ‘great recession’ through no fault of their own, that's a failure of capitalism that libertarian market fundamentalist simply ignore putting their ‘values over realty’.

Tech wrote: "Social justice" and many of the concepts in that Greenpeace policy document are corrosive to societal progress. They guarantee less opportunity and equality for all.

Indy: Protecting the environment recognizes the externalities that cost us our opportunity by having a ‘healthy’ environment.

Market fundamentalist ignore these costs since they reduce profits but do you want a expanding stock market while your health security suffers?

Tech wrote: "Overcoming the shortcomings of many religious norms is the greatest challenge facing mankind." - Indy

Wrong. Overcoming the natural condition of humanity, i.e. poverty and enslavement, is the greatest challenge.

Indy: Sadly, the poster fails to grasp that many of the religious conservative’s beliefs are putting more people into poverty as the world over supply of labor indicates.

Note that religious conservatives fight against 'sex education' and non-abortive family planning that puts more and more people into poverty.

Again, religious conservatives ignore this reality in favor of their ‘values’ that sadly don’t exist in the ‘real world’.


Indy: Posted: June 29, 2014 12:04 a.m.

Tech wrote: Policy like this "to achieve ecological balance and social justice", Indy?

Indy: Ecological balance is the key to ‘sustainable growth’ . . . no more massive recessions or depressions . . .

Who would be against a strategy that gives all people the economic opportunity while building their long term security?

Tech wrote: Indy: Yes, exactly.

Good to have you on record of supporting this degrowth policy document.

Indy: What libertarian market fundamentalist fail to acknowledge is that resource limitations will create the ‘degrowth’ he’s concerned about. But he ignores that . . .

Why? Well, when you base your views on beliefs that don’t map to real world, you end up threating the economic opportunity for future Americans while threatening their global security since more people and declining resources create the social unrest that we see for example in the middle east.

Can those socio economic factors be addressed by destroying nation’s infrastructures with bombing?

For an excellent discussion of this issue, try reading the LA Times series of articles called ‘Beyond 7 Billion’: www.latimes.com/world/population/


ricketzz: Posted: June 29, 2014 10:24 a.m.

Ah the libertarian Bircher passes down judgement on people he never met, immediately assumes he knows better."These people lack the gene for plunder; they must be defective."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_warfare


tech: Posted: June 29, 2014 12:55 p.m.

Some of us comprehend what the degrowth "sustainable" strategy entails, Indy. To name a few aspects of Greenpeace "utopia":

• Complete centralized regulatory control of the economy, allocating all resources
• Energy rationing
• Herding into high density housing, i.e. regulating "urban sprawl" out of existence
• Population control to non-replacement rates (breeding permits, 1 child, etc.)
• Mobility limitation via public transportation, rationing of private vehicle ownership
• Low yield farming
• Elimination of the middle class via high taxation
• Domestic and international wealth redistribution

I encourage all to read the Greenpeace degrowth link I provided and understand what they envision. Zero or negative GDP growth and high structural unemployment is a foretaste of what their policies would inflict upon us.


tech: Posted: June 29, 2014 1:00 p.m.

Your demonstrated knowledge of history makes me chuckle, ricketzz.

Native Americans practiced slavery. Hardly "perfect government". Q.E.D.


tech: Posted: June 29, 2014 3:46 p.m.

Example: This is the nature of regulatory fiat rule that Indy/ricketzz and "sustainable" fellow travelers support:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40iHXAOjJ3U


tech: Posted: June 29, 2014 4:04 p.m.

Housing and mass transit:

Top Democratic Lawmaker Backs Off ‘Carbon Tax’

SACRAMENTO (AP) — The state Senate leader on Monday backed off an unpopular proposal for a so-called carbon tax on consumer fuels and instead wants to dedicate billions of dollars generated by California’s greenhouse gas reduction law to affordable housing, mass transit and high-speed rail.

Think only the "rich" will be affected?

California's Cap-and-Trade Revolt
Liberal Democrats worry that carbon limits will hurt the poor.

Last week 16 Democratic Assembly Members—about 30% of their caucus—signed a letter urging California Air Resources Board chairwoman Mary Nichols to delay or redesign the state's cap-and-trade program. "We are concerned about the impact of the AB 32 cap-and-trade program on our constituents," they write, adding that "many of the areas we represent are still struggling with double digit unemployment."

Large manufacturers and power plants must now either purchase permits or cut their emissions to comply with a state-mandated cap, which over time will be ratcheted down. Starting next year, transportation fuel suppliers will also have to pony up for permits.

Assembly Democrats fear that applying cap and trade to fuels "will cause an immediate jump in prices at the pump." While estimates vary, "an increase of about fifteen cents per gallon is likely and a much larger jump is possible." Senate President Darrell Steinberg has warned that gas prices could shoot up by 40 cents per gallon..

California's gas prices, which typically run 40 to 50 cents above the national average, are already the highest in the continental U.S. due to the state's fuel blending requirements and taxes—which also top the other 49 states. The Boston Consulting Group predicted in 2012 that cap and trade and the state's carbon fuel standard would drive up gas prices between $0.49 and $1.83 per gallon by 2020. These green regulations are intended to raise the cost of gas to encourage people to drive less or buy electric cars.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/californias-cap-and-trade-revolt-1403908359


Indy: Posted: June 29, 2014 6:57 p.m.

Tech wrote: Some of us comprehend what the degrowth "sustainable" strategy entails, Indy. To name a few aspects of Greenpeace "utopia":

Indy: I like how the poster’s address resource limitations by using the term ‘degrowth’ but indeed that is the case and we’re already seeing it here in the US as wages fall relative to the dissemination of ‘limited resources’ globally.

In other words, wages are used to spread about the resources available . . . thus lower wages map to less resources.

In any event, let’s look at the laundry list of assertions and see if they are of any use:

Tech wrote: • Complete centralized regulatory control of the economy, allocating all resources

Indy: I’m not surprised that a libertarian market fundamentalist ‘frames’ the long term planning we need as ‘Complete centralized regulatory control of the economy’. Can you say ‘communism’ boys and girls?

This phrase has a deep meaning to conservatives from their days watching communist but the world we live in today requires that we plan ahead in much the same way you’d plan a family vacation.

You might:

- Budget the vacation from your available funds
- Map your destinations to find the best travel routes
- Pre-book your stays finding the best price for comfort and services

As you can see, your ‘planning’ still involves the ‘market’ in that you’re ‘free to choose’ various options. But you do ‘plan ahead’ for a successful trip.

How is this ‘tainted’ by communism?

Tech wrote: • Energy rationing

Indy: I’ve noted before that resource limitations will perform the ‘rationing’ but we still have ‘choices’.

Do you want to use more resources today for less tomorrow? This is a foundational item in basic economics that is usually stated ‘more today for less tomorrow’ or vice versa.

And as we see in our nation’s oil reserves, currently at about 32 billion barrels, you can pump it out faster but it doesn’t last as long. Thus the resource base ‘rations’ itself based on the quantities of same.

Notice, again, you have ‘choice’ . . . more now less later? Or less now, more later?

You decide.


Indy: Posted: June 29, 2014 7:07 p.m.

Tech wrote: • Herding into high density housing, i.e. regulating "urban sprawl" out of existence

Indy: As market forces drive up the cost of housing and land, people buy smaller homes or live in smaller rented facilities.

I’m not sure how the poster is tying this into ‘degrowth’ in that this is strictly ‘market forces’ acting in conjunction with ‘scarcity’.

We don’t have a ‘unlimited’ planet but a ‘fixed rock in space’.

Tech wrote: • Population control to non-replacement rates (breeding permits, 1 child, etc.)

Indy: Here again, we have a ‘choice’ in that we let ‘scarcity’ determine population size through starvation or plan ahead ourselves to live in concert with what nature provides. This is the sustainability issue.

What’s the more humane approach? Again, choice. We can ‘think’ about the ‘trade offs’ and decide if one course of action is better and more family friendly that another.

Even as I write this, estimates for people dying from lack of water, food, and sanitation are from 15,000 to 30,000 ‘per day’.

Why? No planning. No recognition of resource constraints.

Tech wrote: • Mobility limitation via public transportation, rationing of private vehicle ownership

Indy: Indeed, transportation in the future will be ‘different’ based on energy sources and availability.

Likewise, the method of transportation will all be changing based on usage of resources.

Tech wrote: • Low yield farming

Indy: This is perhaps the most frightening reality we face due to both ‘water’ limitations and using nonrenewable fossil fuels to create our agricultural gains.

Even today, we use about 9 calories of fossil fuels (plowing, planting, harvesting, shipping, storing, marketing, fertilizing’ for each since calorie of food produced. This is not sustainable.

And many of our aquifers are being ‘pumped’ dry as usage exceeds the ‘recharging’ of said water sources.

Using organic farming techniques creates ‘sustainable yields’ for the long haul . . . the one your kids will be living in . . .


Indy: Posted: June 29, 2014 7:16 p.m.

Tech wrote: • Elimination of the middle class via high taxation

Indy: This is interesting . . . considering that wealth concentration today is ‘limiting’ the incomes of Americans as income concentrates to the top income earners.

But indeed, any government safety net programs like food stamps will increase in cost from scarcity.

Tech wrote: • Domestic and international wealth redistribution

Indy: Yes, globalization is now the active agent in wealth concentration as multination corporations ( and their stockholders ) now leverage the wage differential in developing nations to increase profits and capture all productivity increases ( think owners of capital – stock holders if you will ).

Wages for middle income earners have stagnated since the last 70s from the over supply of labor globally from over population.

Tech wrote: I encourage all to read the Greenpeace degrowth link I provided and understand what they envision. Zero or negative GDP growth and high structural unemployment is a foretaste of what their policies would inflict upon us.

Indy: Here again, the poster incorrectly chastises the people that are disclosing economic scarcity but the scarcity itself will be the agent that does the ‘degrowth’.

As far as unemployment goes, we have to find a ‘sustainable population’ limit that insures the maximum freedom for all people, maximum economic opportunity and security, but all consistent with the resources available to us while not degrading the environment that supports us.

More people with less resources, everyone gets less that has to ‘work’ for their incomes . . . those that own the ‘capital’ if you benefit from the ‘aggregate’ growth while the living standards of the majority of people are reduced from the scarcity.


tech: Posted: June 29, 2014 8:20 p.m.

Indy: I like how the poster’s address resource limitations by using the term ‘degrowth’ but indeed that is the case and we’re already seeing it here in the US as wages fall relative to the dissemination of ‘limited resources’ globally.

It's not my term. I obtained it from the Greenpeace site I linked to that contains policies that you and ricketzz endorse, i.e. degrowth. This needs to be exposed.

If the reader parses your posts, they'll note you rebutted zero items I listed. You can't because they're on point.

Do you have any children and grandchildren, Indy? Have you told them you support policies that will guarantee they'll have a lower standard of living than you enjoy now? --edited.


tech: Posted: June 29, 2014 8:28 p.m.

"As you can see, your ‘planning’ still involves the ‘market’ in that you’re ‘free to choose’ various options." - Indy

LOL! "Choice" as dictated by technocratic central planners. Bronze, Silver, Gold & Platinum, eh?

You don't understand what a market is. :-D


tech: Posted: June 29, 2014 9:22 p.m.

Any comment on the EPA denying the property owner due process and right to use their private property, Indy?


Indy: Posted: June 29, 2014 10:53 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: I like how the poster’s address resource limitations by using the term ‘degrowth’ but indeed that is the case and we’re already seeing it here in the US as wages fall relative to the dissemination of ‘limited resources’ globally.

It's not my term. I obtained it from the Greenpeace site I linked to that contains policies that you and ricketzz endorse, i.e. degrowth. This needs to be exposed.

Indy: The term is also used by the author of the book you recommended I get and I did . . . but it matters little . . . degrowth will occur from resource constraints.

The ‘per capita’ values will also continue to decline due to population growth citing the same resource constraints.

That needs to become common knowledge so please, address this as often as you think of it.

Tech wrote: If the reader parses your posts, they'll note you rebutted zero items I listed. You can't because they're on point.

Indy: I was just going to note that you never address my points . . . and understandably so since they refute your assertions.

That’s Ok since debating forums are different from ideology based websites where ‘both’ sides of issues are presented.

Tech wrote: Do you have any children and grandchildren, Indy? Have you told them you support policies that will guarantee they'll have a lower standard of living than you enjoy now? --edited.

Indy: Yes, it’s important that my descendants understand scarcity and can get the proverbial grip that living on ‘fixed rock in space’ does require planning, that we can’t have a ‘unlimited’ population, and those two focal points have to become ‘common knowledge’.

Currently, the US is living unsustainably. I noted the book ‘Crash Course’ by Martenson . . . you should visit his website www.peakprosperity.com . . . a video set is there for free. Since you like You Tube, you should take advantage of this guy’s generosity. His book is worth reading as well.

If you ‘limit’ yourself to libertarian sources and books, you won’t get the full picture.


Indy: Posted: June 29, 2014 10:55 p.m.

Tech wrote: Any comment on the EPA denying the property owner due process and right to use their private property, Indy?

Indy: Yes, property owners today can’t ‘pollute’ the air or water that crosses their property lines and degrades other’s property.

Nor can they create hazardous waste dumps . . . on their property.

Was the point you were making?


Indy: Posted: June 29, 2014 11:02 p.m.

Tech wrote: "As you can see, your ‘planning’ still involves the ‘market’ in that you’re ‘free to choose’ various options." - Indy

You don't understand what a market is. :-D

Indy: Yes, people have to make choices everyday but they need ‘complete’ information not just slogans or talking points from people that see only their wealth concentrating.

And you might want to revisit you basic economics where the assumptions are:

myweb.liu.edu/~uroy/eco23psy23/ppt/02-standard-model.pptx
• Standard economics relies heavily on the assumption that people are rational
• Standard economics assumes that people
– are fully aware of all the options they have
– can -- always and consistently -- rank their options in accordance with their preferences, and
– always choose the option they like best

Indy: Today, most folks don’t’ have knowledge of all of their options since they are distorted by self-interested parties putting their future ahead of everyone else.

Most people don’t understand what drivers climate change nor do they have any idea whatsoever to the amount of oil in the US. Thus, they are acting ‘irrationally’ . . . and not making use of the best options.

This is perhaps the greatest weakness of libertarianism which assumes ‘individuals’ do have such knowledge.

That’s why your educational background, while no doubt sufficient to give you an excellent vocabulary, still leaves you wanting for a complete understanding of basic economics, budgeting, and management.


Indy: Posted: June 29, 2014 11:12 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Have you been a owner of a business?" - Indy

Yes, multiple. It makes your assertions about my lack of business experience all the more amusing and fact free. :-D

Indy: Missed this in an old thread . . .

What types of businesses did you run? Did you own them?

I don’t need the names or anything but were they services based on products or professional?


tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 1:43 a.m.

"Was the point you were making?" - Indy

No. Rather, I was demonstrating what an indifferent researcher you are.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/opinion-recap-taking-epa-to-court/


tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 1:53 a.m.

Indy: Today, most folks don’t’ have knowledge of all of their options since they are distorted by self-interested parties putting their future ahead of everyone else.

You failed to emphasize they need to rely on self-important technocrats to decide for them, confirming my original point, i.e. choices will be limited to those preselected. Given the recent demonstrations of expertise by government drones, that's a rather dubious assertion, is it not? --edited.


tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 1:58 a.m.

"Have you been a owner of a business?" - Indy

Tech: Yes, multiple. It makes your assertions about my lack of business experience all the more amusing and fact free. :-D

Indy: Missed this in an old thread . . .

What types of businesses did you run? Did you own them?

Such incisive questioning! Were you searching old posts to find something, something… that continues to evade you?


tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 2:07 a.m.

Isn't it a relief to finally come clean about the dystopia you wish upon us all, including your progeny, Indy? Confession is good for the soul, eh?


ricketzz: Posted: June 30, 2014 10:47 a.m.

"Standard of living" as defined by whom? By what?

There were 2.5 billion people here when I arrived. How much of the 4,000,000,000 heads increase in population is driven by the need for "growth" by people who sell mindless high-margin consumer goods to mindless consumers?

Don't you ever question your function in their world? What are all these people doing on the freeway at the same time? Why are all the holidays on Friday or Monday? Except Xmas and Independence Day.

If you fear bringing children into this world because of man made suicidal climate cataclysm there is no quality of life. If we have to ally with genocidal warlords to get rare earths for our gadgetry we are gone too far. "Quality of life" works for a few, doesn't work for the 99%.


tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 1:32 p.m.

"Standard of living" as defined by whom? By what?" - ricketzz

Objective, quantifiable criteria.

Data site: http://humanprogress.org
Essay: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/human-progress-not-inevitable-uneven-indisputable

"If you fear bringing children into this world because of man made suicidal climate cataclysm there is no quality of life." - ricketzz

If you're subject to emotional irrationality to this degree perhaps it's best to avoid contributing to the human gene pool. Our species will survive and thrive without you.

The jeremiads associated with degrowth and collapse anxiety are remarkably similar to religious fervor. I picture these folks on street corners with sandwich boards proclaiming "The End is nigh! Repent!" --edited.


Indy: Posted: June 30, 2014 5:13 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Today, most folks don’t’ have knowledge of all of their options since they are distorted by self-interested parties putting their future ahead of everyone else.

You failed to emphasize they need to rely on self-important technocrats to decide for them, confirming my original point, i.e. choices will be limited to those preselected. Given the recent demonstrations of expertise by government drones, that's a rather dubious assertion, is it not? --edited.

Indy: Notice how the poster ‘dismisses’ why we even have government of duly elected people to run and plan the nation’s business!

He ignores that people actually ‘vote’ in America!

Understandably, our political process has become tainted with lobbyist directed politicians that now serve the ‘we the money’ versus what the Founding Fathers wanted ‘we the people’.

In any event, government can be the collective intelligence of all of us as individuals that can guide us to a future based on freedom and the opportunity to be secure.

Why would anyone be against that?


Indy: Posted: June 30, 2014 5:24 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Have you been a owner of a business?" - Indy

Tech: Yes, multiple. It makes your assertions about my lack of business experience all the more amusing and fact free. :-D

Indy: Missed this in an old thread . . .

What types of businesses did you run? Did you own them? Such incisive questioning! Were you searching old posts to find something, something… that continues to evade you?

Indy: Notice the poster ‘dodged’ the question, one that he himself asked and even boasted about his business experience:

tech: Posted: June 1, 2014 11:59 p.m.
"Have you been a owner of a business?" - Indy

Yes, multiple. It makes your assertions about my lack of business experience all the more amusing and fact free. :-D

Indy: So why wouldn’t the poster want to disclose and support his statement?

And then chide others for not doing what he won’t do . . .

This is the reality of libertarians when confronted with the failures and shortcomings of their ideology that is supported on rhetoric like ‘Were you searching old posts to find something, something… that continues to evade you?’ LOL!

In any event the same poster won’t disclose his own educational background . . . I guess fearing that it would make his arguments even weaker than they are.

Anyway, I’ve noted my educational background including a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering and a MBA (the long version for non-undergrad business students).

I participated in partnership of a company that ‘produced’ things for some 20 years while working in engineering for a like time.

I’ve done the accounting, job costing, budgeting, contract preparation, payroll, set up computerized accounting systems while negotiating both with clients, vendors and various government agencies.

Yet, this poster just comes back with contentious comments that say nothing . . . what does that say about him?


Indy: Posted: June 30, 2014 5:29 p.m.

Tech wrote: Isn't it a relief to finally come clean about the dystopia you wish upon us all, including your progeny, Indy? Confession is good for the soul, eh?

Indy: Notice how the poster wants to present his ideology failures by putting words in my mouth!

But the reality is the poster lacks the big picture awareness of the global economy and the factors such as population and resources that will decide what type of economic activity we will face.

I would be great if the poster’s vocabulary provided him the insights with respect to what the words mean when put together in sentences, but as you see here, the ‘quick quip’ is ‘his solution’.

No thought, no questions, just right back to the asserting that only ‘he’ knows what’s best for us all and find that distorting things is helpful?


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 30, 2014 6:49 p.m.

Flaw No. 4: The report states “carbon taxes ... mean to help markets internalize the negative externalities unrealized by the parties directly involved”

What does that mean? It means this: things that are not affected by the market but deemed important to the taxing body will become related to the market by way of governmental fiat.

The wording is eerily reminiscent of Orwel's 1984....


tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 9:29 p.m.

Indy: Notice the poster ‘dodged’ the question, one that he himself asked and even boasted about his business experience:

LOL! A complete misrepresentation. You asked. I answered. Indy, you're so confused you can't delineate between your outgassing and my posts.


tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 9:43 p.m.

This is how you become confused, Indy. It's your quoting process. You incessantly boast of your business, management and educational prowess but can't manage a grade school level task.

Annotated example:

Tech (no, that's you Indy) wrote: "Have you been a owner of a business?" - Indy

I didn't write that. You did.

Here's the entire post:

Indy:
Posted: May 31, 2014
7:57 p.m.
tech wrote: "Indy: No, that was your bud ‘tech’ that made that comment . . . " - Indy

The real tech: "No, it was you that stated your business couldn't compete with unregulated labor and closed down. My memory isn't selective based on context and others will no doubt recall as well. You leak far more than you suppose and intellectual honesty isn't a hallmark of your posts, Indy."

Indy: No, not ‘unregulated’ labor . . . illegal alien labor.

Since I got no help from our ‘leaders’ other than their rhetorical recitals, I didn’t want to ‘compete’ in an industry where to be competitive you had to ‘break the law’.

I did just fine for 20 years . . . but there came the point where it wasn’t worth it and I didn’t want to break the law.

And just look at the nonsense going on in congress today with ‘immigration reform’. We can’t even get a vote in the House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In any event, your mindless banter about ‘intellectual honesty’ is sadly just to hide your own ignorance . . . that fact you can’t see that is sad . . .

But again, if you disclose your educational background or lack of same, I can help you better with the concepts in business, management and economics you have so much trouble with.

Have you been a owner of a business?

http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/120162/

You beaver away on frivolous tasks in a government owned cubicle, don't you?


Indy: Posted: June 30, 2014 10:02 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: Flaw No. 4: The report states “carbon taxes ... mean to help markets internalize the negative externalities unrealized by the parties directly involved”

What does that mean? It means this: things that are not affected by the market but deemed important to the taxing body will become related to the market by way of governmental fiat.

Indy: Indeed, polluters never crease polluting that endangers our freedom and security to be free of harm from pollutants unless the pollution is contained through rational and effective regulations.

So polluting companies like to argue that the regulations that ensure public safety are never passed . . . thus the ‘market’ doesn’t see those cost.

Even the conservative libertarian economist Milton Friedman addressed this issue in his famous book ‘Free to Choose’.

A polluting company in Idaho that say kills all the forest downwind of their stacks can lower the product price in CA since the residents here can’t see the environmental damage.

Freidman’s termed this a ‘market failure’ where the consumers see a low price since they don’t have to pay for the environmental damage done to residents in Idaho.

In any event, strict adherence to ideology based libertarian market fundamentalism ignores such cost to people . . . leaving us with the ‘choice’ to have higher profits for the polluting company while we the ‘residents’ have to breather dirty air or drink dirty water . . .

How does that improve our economic security?


Indy: Posted: June 30, 2014 10:05 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Notice the poster ‘dodged’ the question, one that he himself asked and even boasted about his business experience:

LOL! A complete misrepresentation. You asked. I answered. Indy, you're so confused you can't delineate between your outgassing and my posts.

Indy: Can you imagine having this guy in your company that ‘says a lot’ but doesn’t do what he says . . .

Again, what types of businesses did you run?

And what is your educational background?

What are you afraid to state same?


tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 10:06 p.m.

Indy: Today, most folks don’t’ have knowledge of all of their options since they are distorted by self-interested parties putting their future ahead of everyone else.

Tech: You failed to emphasize they need to rely on self-important technocrats to decide for them, confirming my original point, i.e. choices will be limited to those preselected. Given the recent demonstrations of expertise by government drones, that's a rather dubious assertion, is it not?

Indy: Notice how the poster ‘dismisses’ why we even have government of duly elected people to run and plan the nation’s business!

He ignores that people actually ‘vote’ in America!

Tech: Hahahahahahahahahaha! Your deflection is hilarious and entirely beside the point! A choice of preselected choices isn't a free market choice, Indy. :-D

"Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black." - Henry Ford <---- Indy's idea of "choice".

Tech: By the way, neither I nor other regular citizens voted for people employed at HHS. Yet they wrote thousands of pages of regulations directing the nation's healthcare. Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum. Your "choice".


Indy: Posted: June 30, 2014 10:07 p.m.

Again, for the refresher for the Tech poster:

tech: Posted: June 1, 2014 11:59 p.m.
"Have you been a owner of a business?" - Indy

Yes, multiple. It makes your assertions about my lack of business experience all the more amusing and fact free. :-D

Indy: So why wouldn’t the poster want to disclose and support his statement?

And then chide others for not doing what he won’t do . . .


tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 10:10 p.m.

"A polluting company in Idaho that say kills all the forest downwind of their stacks can lower the product price in CA since the residents here can’t see the environmental damage." - Indy

What's the company, Indy? Be specific.


Indy: Posted: June 30, 2014 10:13 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Today, most folks don’t’ have knowledge of all of their options since they are distorted by self-interested parties putting their future ahead of everyone else.

Tech: You failed to emphasize they need to rely on self-important technocrats to decide for them, confirming my original point, i.e. choices will be limited to those preselected. Given the recent demonstrations of expertise by government drones, that's a rather dubious assertion, is it not?

Indy: Notice how the poster ‘dismisses’ why we even have government of duly elected people to run and plan the nation’s business!

He ignores that people actually ‘vote’ in America!

Tech: Hahahahahahahahahaha! Your deflection is hilarious and entirely beside the point! A choice of preselected choices isn't a free market choice, Indy. :-D

Indy: Sadly, the poster who has repeated told us the US government is not ‘we the people’, again simply dismissing the very government our Founding Fathers ‘fought and died to create’!

But notice how republican conservatives that shut our government down and now obstruct it’s function is also ignored by this poster . . . wow!

Tech wrote: "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black." - Henry Ford <---- Indy's idea of "choice".

Tech: By the way, neither I nor other regular citizens voted for people employed at HHS. Yet they wrote thousands of pages of regulations directing the nation's healthcare. Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum. Your "choice".

Indy: I guess the poster can take the ACA issue up with the 8+ million Americans that signed up through the exchanges plus the several million ‘poor’ people that now have accessed to Medicaid . . . while another several million poor in republican lead states are being denied this coverage.

What type of person withholds health care for the poor?


Indy: Posted: June 30, 2014 10:14 p.m.

Tech wrote: "A polluting company in Idaho that say kills all the forest downwind of their stacks can lower the product price in CA since the residents here can’t see the environmental damage." - Indy

What's the company, Indy? Be specific.

Indy: You’ll have to buy the book by Milton Friedman that cites this example . . . you can get is used on Amazon for $0.01 . . . plus shipping.


tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 10:52 p.m.

Since Mr. Friedman expired November 16, 2006, I'll assume the example is not longer current or relevant.

Do you really imagine a company operating in this manner today, Indy?


tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 11:10 p.m.

Indy: So why wouldn’t the poster want to disclose and support his statement?

And then chide others for not doing what he won’t do . . .

Tech: I merely repeated what you provided and you confirmed. Can't you get anything right?

I don't need to disclose anything to you, anonymous forum participant. You asked if I've ever owned a business and I responded in the manner I saw fit. Anything else is none of your business and "proof" on the internet is nothing of the sort. Believing anything other than what's posted is for the naïve.

The purpose beyond your simplistic flailing inquiries is the vain hope to find a way to poison the well rather than a dialectic discussion in good faith.

I don't post here for the approval of others. I do find it great sport to deflate your immense ego and school you on your numerous errors in logic and data.


tech: Posted: July 1, 2014 1:48 a.m.

Meanwhile on Planet Earth…

Dramatic NASA satellite images show our air getting cleaner

If Americans are breathing easier than they were a decade ago, these new NASA satellite images may help explain why. They show -- in vividly color-coded maps -- that levels of nitrogen dioxide, an important air pollutant, have plummeted across the country over the last decade.

The data comes from a NASA satellite called Aura, which launched in 2004 with the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) to measure pollutants in columns of air. Goddard data visualizers then plotted the concentrations of various pollutants in each column over a map of the U.S., and in more detail over a number of cities, comparing data collected from 2005 to 2011.

Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide coded as yellow to red are considered unhealthy, explained Bryan Duncan, an atmospheric scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

Duncan told CBS News: "The Aura satellite happened to be collecting data at the right time to witness this huge reduction in air pollution in the U.S. -- about 40 percent on average for nitrogen dioxide."

Most nitrogen dioxide is generated by cars burning gasoline and power plants burning coal. Over the past decade, technologies for improving gas mileage and scrubbing nitrogen dioxide and other pollutants out of power plant exhaust towers have been implemented across the country.

Nitrogen dioxide can impact the respiratory system, and it also contributes to the formation of other pollutants including ground-level ozone and particulates.

"Ozone is nasty stuff," says Duncan. "It is highly reactive. When you breathe it in, the ozone reacts with the lung tissue and burns it." According to the EPA, ground-level ozone levels have also decreased over the same period.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dramatic-nasa-satellite-images-show-our-air-getting-cleaner/


Indy: Posted: July 1, 2014 5:26 p.m.

Tech wrote: Since Mr. Friedman expired November 16, 2006, I'll assume the example is not longer current or relevant.

Indy: You’ve got to really wonder where this guy comes up with stuff . . . he steadfastly supports neoclassical economics as depicted in his libertarian market fundamentalism . . . yet he now wants to assume that what Freidman noted in his book is no longer relevant?

Does that hold for Ronald Reagan as well now that he’s dead?

Tech wrote: Do you really imagine a company operating in this manner today, Indy?

Indy: Yes, most businesses learn from their mistakes including being watchful of changing conditions.

But polluters today that lobby for less regulations that affect them and their pollution is happening right now!!!!


Indy: Posted: July 1, 2014 5:34 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: So why wouldn’t the poster want to disclose and support his statement?

And then chide others for not doing what he won’t do . . .

Tech: I merely repeated what you provided and you confirmed. Can't you get anything right?

Indy: Why not just tell us?

Tech wrote: I don't need to disclose anything to you, anonymous forum participant. You asked if I've ever owned a business and I responded in the manner I saw fit. Anything else is none of your business and "proof" on the internet is nothing of the sort. Believing anything other than what's posted is for the naïve.

Indy: I don’t want to know your personal information like your name or current employment, but did you own companies that provided product services or professional services?

And what about your educational background? I don’t need to know the college . . .

Further, you’ve asserted that your business experience supports your libertarian ideology but refuse to substantiate it.

So why make that statement and then walk away from it?

Tech wrote: The purpose beyond your simplistic flailing inquiries is the vain hope to find a way to poison the well rather than a dialectic discussion in good faith.

Indy: Now you’re doing the ‘round and round’ . . . you refuse to substantiate your expertise but feel I guess satisfied by simply accusing others of not participating in this forum as you dictate? Please . . .

Tech wrote: I don't post here for the approval of others. I do find it great sport to deflate your immense ego and school you on your numerous errors in logic and data.

Indy: I’m just here to show the failings of libertarianism and the shortcomings of capitalism to the ‘guest readers’.

That’s why I respond to your posts for that type of enlightenment. It’s not personal since I don’t know you . . .

But it is important to address the ideology pinning’s of your thinking and to expose their weaknesses as appropriate.

I’ll likewise support anything you write that has foundation in modern economics, business, and management both in the public and private sector.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 1, 2014 5:39 p.m.

What you miss, Mr. Indy, is that corporations already "internalize the negative externalities" by having regulatory compliance departments within their organizations to assure conformance to laws and rules. This includes fines and assessments for pollution and waste.

What REMI is trying to do is add an additional burden to US businesses in the form of a "carbon tax" since, in their opinion, business does not do enough to address this "externality"

Don't know if you noticed but the Signal had an article this week about Sacramento Democrats beginning to discuss backing away from California's new cap and trade regulations due to the pending damage it will do to our economy.

Magnify that many times and realize the damage it will do to the US economy. Very foolish economic policy for questionable gains.


tech: Posted: July 1, 2014 5:46 p.m.

My point is "current and relevant" examples of companies "killing forests", Indy.

"But polluters today that lobby for less regulations that affect them and their pollution is happening right now!!!!" - Indy

All companies lobby against regulations that have the potential to impact their business in a negative way. Do you have a specific current example of a company operating in noncompliance with environmental law? --edited.


tech: Posted: July 1, 2014 5:57 p.m.

"Further, you’ve asserted that your business experience supports your libertarian ideology but refuse to substantiate it." - Indy

Straw man and I said nothing of the sort. You're confusing your ideological fervor with my clear and direct words.

Here again are the direct quotes for the record:

"Have you been a owner of a business?" - Indy

Tech: "Yes, multiple. It makes your assertions about my lack of business experience all the more amusing and fact free. :-D"


ricketzz: Posted: July 2, 2014 9:24 a.m.

Tech, what does NOx have to do with Global Warming? Why try to confuse matters? Are you that scatterbrained? Or are you being evil?

The official paper is out about how gas wells are so leaky there is no GHG advantage over coal. We must stop burning things. Leave the age of fire and join the age of free energy.


tech: Posted: July 2, 2014 12:14 p.m.

NOx reduction = pollution reduction. Air quality is better in urban areas than when we were kids. Q.E.D.


Indy: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:40 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: What you miss, Mr. Indy, is that corporations already "internalize the negative externalities" by having regulatory compliance departments within their organizations to assure conformance to laws and rules. This includes fines and assessments for pollution and waste.

Indy: Yes, ‘current comliance’ by laws that are often distorted and incomplete by the lobbyist directed dollars flowing to congress.

How else can you have 97% confidence in climate change and still have republican politicians ‘denying’ the problem!

So companies in their own ‘self-interest’ will sacrifice the long term interest of the public to report higher quarterly earnings that are based without full recognition of the consequences of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

AlwaysRight wrote: What REMI is trying to do is add an additional burden to US businesses in the form of a "carbon tax" since, in their opinion, business does not do enough to address this "externality" .

Indy: I don’t see that a company asked to protect the environment ‘I live in’ as a burden but just a recognition of the reality we face.

Even Milton Freidman acknowledged the issue of 'market failure' where a company isn't recognizing the full environmental externalities of producing a given product. Check out his book 'Free to Choose'.

All environmental laws were created to address the unaccounted cost of pollution from companies.

AlwaysRight wrote: Don't know if you noticed but the Signal had an article this week about Sacramento Democrats beginning to discuss backing away from California's new cap and trade regulations due to the pending damage it will do to our economy.

Indy: If we don’t recognize the long term consequences, it matters little what happens now.

We’re currently living in a unsustainable manner and the longer we wait to address that the worse are the consequences not to mention the ‘future’ cost.

If climate change from CO2 continues to create longer droughts, what happens when the food supply drops because of that?

AlwaysRight wrote: Magnify that many times and realize the damage it will do to the US economy. Very foolish economic policy for questionable gains.

Indy: The US economy doesn’t exist ‘apart from nature’ . . . I suggest you watch DeCaprio’s excellent documentary entitled ‘The 11th Hour’ that has a well-respected group of scientist that addresses that every point.


Indy: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:43 p.m.

Tech wrote: My point is "current and relevant" examples of companies "killing forests", Indy.

"But polluters today that lobby for less regulations that affect them and their pollution is happening right now!!!!" - Indy

All companies lobby against regulations that have the potential to impact their business in a negative way. Do you have a specific current example of a company operating in noncompliance with environmental law? --edited.

Indy: Yes, any many companies produce things that impact our environment that effects my personal health and wellbeing.

I’m sure you can find examples of companies that pollute without accountability. Look into the ‘super fund’ examples where companies just ‘walked away’ from the damage to the environment they created.


Indy: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:52 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Further, you’ve asserted that your business experience supports your libertarian ideology but refuse to substantiate it." - Indy

Straw man and I said nothing of the sort.

Indy: This guy wrote:

“tech: Posted: June 1, 2014 11:59 p.m.
"Have you been a owner of a business?" - Indy

Yes, multiple. It makes your assertions about my lack of business experience all the more amusing and fact free. :-D”

Tech wrote: You're confusing your ideological fervor with my clear and direct words.

Indy: LOL

Tech wrote: Here again are the direct quotes for the record:

Tech wrote: "Have you been a owner of a business?" - Indy

Tech: "Yes, multiple. It makes your assertions about my lack of business experience all the more amusing and fact free. :-D"

Indy: Why not just give us a clue to the types of businesses you ran . . . and please, include your educational background. Be specific!

My experience in business is that attorneys that tried to run a business simply aren’t trained in the areas that are most important. Being able to ‘write a contract’ and ‘run a business’ are two different activities.

This is why our congress is so inept at running our nation . . . with over 40% of the sitting politicians with law degrees.

We should be hiring these folks to write the laws that are founded on the basis of sound economics, logic, and rationality and ‘fit for purpose’ not legal recitals that aren’t capable to address our nation’s problems in a pragmatic manner.


tech: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:47 a.m.

"My experience in business is that attorneys that tried to run a business simply aren’t trained in the areas that are most important. Being able to ‘write a contract’ and ‘run a business’ are two different activities." - Story Time with Indy

Let us know when you've recovered from your state of irrelevance.


ricketzz: Posted: July 3, 2014 10:36 a.m.

Ozone and acid rain were dealt with, as will be GHGs.

When I was a kid bad air killed people on the street. A fog in London dropped several thousand dead. An inversion layer over a valley near Pittsbugh caused deaths and made the papers. This was all due to coal and coal was phased out. It seemed to start coming back when Reagan wrecked everything good about this country.

Does it seem at all odd that the weather is stuck? That the Jet Stream goes primarily up and down now, as opposed to longitudinally? If the weather can't be relied on how can we farm? How do we eat?

"First, kill all the lawyers" -Wm. Shakespeare


17trillion: Posted: July 3, 2014 4:32 p.m.

More gems from Ricketzz. Feast your eyes on these beauties:

"when Reagan wrecked everything good about this country."

"If the weather can't be relied on how can we farm?"


Indy: Posted: July 3, 2014 10:11 p.m.

Tech wrote: "My experience in business is that attorneys that tried to run a business simply aren’t trained in the areas that are most important. Being able to ‘write a contract’ and ‘run a business’ are two different activities." - Story Time with Indy

Let us know when you've recovered from your state of irrelevance.

Indy: Again, attorneys are good for contract writing and understand the exposure of same.

But when it comes to ‘running’ a business, attorneys are the last people on earth I would entrust with same.

Their lack of knowledge in economics, business management, accounting, and budgeting really jeopardize a business's success.


tech: Posted: July 3, 2014 10:57 p.m.

Despite denigrating everyone but yourself, you can't stay on topic, Indy.

Your posts are irrelevant. --edited.


CaptGene: Posted: July 3, 2014 11:07 p.m.

Fiercely irrelevant.


Indy: Posted: July 3, 2014 11:54 p.m.

Tech wrote: Your posts are irrelevant. --edited.

Indy: And you will be assimilated . . .


Indy: Posted: July 3, 2014 11:55 p.m.

Tech wrote: "My experience in business is that attorneys that tried to run a business simply aren’t trained in the areas that are most important. Being able to ‘write a contract’ and ‘run a business’ are two different activities." - Story Time with Indy

Let us know when you've recovered from your state of irrelevance.

Indy: Thanks for making my point . . .


tech: Posted: July 4, 2014 12:29 a.m.

Tech wrote: "My experience in business is that attorneys that tried to run a business simply aren’t trained in the areas that are most important. Being able to ‘write a contract’ and ‘run a business’ are two different activities."

No, I didn't. You wrote that.

You're irrelevant AND incompetent.


ricketzz: Posted: July 4, 2014 9:59 a.m.

Reagan's effect on the distribution of income:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

I don't say "the end is near". I say the future is going to get scary. We will go like most things, slowly at first, then all of a sudden.


CaptGene: Posted: July 4, 2014 1:07 p.m.

Apparently cricketzz wants to blame what happens on Clinton's watch on Reagan. Is anyone surprised?

https://motherjones.com/files/images/change-since-1979-600.gif


tech: Posted: July 4, 2014 3:41 p.m.

<------ Not surprised in the least.


Indy: Posted: July 4, 2014 4:47 p.m.

tech wrote: "My experience in business is that attorneys that tried to run a business simply aren’t trained in the areas that are most important. Being able to ‘write a contract’ and ‘run a business’ are two different activities."

No, I didn't. You wrote that.

Indy: Sorry for the ‘cut and paste error’ but again, attorneys lack of any knowledge of the techniques to actually ‘run a business’ from a ‘contract’ is one reason we have so many problem in congress with so many attorneys sitting in the chambers.

Their lack of any cohesive knowledge of basic economics, business, management, and accounting is one reason their ideology premised bills fail . . . and end up hurting the economic opportunities for Americans not to mention their job security.


tech: Posted: July 4, 2014 5:27 p.m.

It's not a "cut and paste error", Indy. It's a repeating process flaw in your quoting methodology. I could point out dozens of instances.

It's not the first time I've brought this to your attention. If you focused less on repetitive ideological posts and reviewed, you'd recognize this systemic error and correct it.


Indy: Posted: July 4, 2014 11:29 p.m.

Tech wrote: It's not a "cut and paste error", Indy. It's a repeating process flaw in your quoting methodology. I could point out dozens of instances.

Indy: You boast about your business experience by refuse to disclose even the simplest factors.

Why would deceive people here?

Same for refusing to give us your educational background which you infer, incorrectly, substantiates your economic views.

We know that’s not true since you continue to support a failed libertarian ideology . . . that is only concentrating wealth in America . . .

Tech wrote: It's not the first time I've brought this to your attention. If you focused less on repetitive ideological posts and reviewed, you'd recognize this systemic error and correct it.

Indy: Again, let me help you . . .


tech: Posted: July 5, 2014 12:51 a.m.

You're the boaster, Indy.

One of the more egregious examples:

"That’s one of the reasons why it appears I know all the answers since I have the MBA plus the years of experience running a business." - Indy Posted: February 11, 2014 7:20 p.m.

http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/113798/

As your flawed quotes reflect, you're unable to perform a root cause analysis, formulate a remediation plan and then execute on it.

That you have difficulty performing grade school level tasks makes your incessant self-puffery all the more absurd.

It must be rather embarrassing that I had to school you on the topic. Again.


tech: Posted: July 5, 2014 12:56 a.m.

"Why would deceive people here?" - Indy

Your pidgin English is so entertaining! Were you grunting while you composed this "sentence"?


tech: Posted: July 5, 2014 2:26 a.m.

U.S. Seen as Biggest Oil Producer After Overtaking Saudi Arabia

The U.S. will remain the world’s biggest oil producer this year after overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia as extraction of energy from shale rock spurs the nation’s economic recovery, Bank of America Corp. said.

U.S. production of crude oil, along with liquids separated from natural gas, surpassed all other countries this year with daily output exceeding 11 million barrels in the first quarter, the bank said in a report today. The country became the world’s largest natural gas producer in 2010. The International Energy Agency said in June that the U.S. was the biggest producer of oil and natural gas liquids.

“The U.S. increase in supply is a very meaningful chunk of oil,” Francisco Blanch, the bank’s head of commodities research, said by phone from New York. “The shale boom is playing a key role in the U.S. recovery. If the U.S. didn’t have this energy supply, prices at the pump would be completely unaffordable.”

Oil extraction is soaring at shale formations in Texas and North Dakota as companies split rocks using high-pressure liquid, a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The surge in supply combined with restrictions on exporting crude is curbing the price of West Texas Intermediate, America’s oil benchmark. The U.S., the world’s largest oil consumer, still imported an average of 7.5 million barrels a day of crude in April, according to the Department of Energy’s statistical arm.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html


Indy: Posted: July 5, 2014 6:47 p.m.

Tech wrote: You're the boaster, Indy.

One of the more egregious examples:

"That’s one of the reasons why it appears I know all the answers since I have the MBA plus the years of experience running a business." - Indy Posted: February 11, 2014 7:20 p.m.

http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/113798/

Indy: Yes, again, it ‘appears’ that I know all the answers due to your lack of any economic grounding in reality . . . that’s the danger of blindly following libertarian market fundamentalism . . . a truly failed ideology from almost any perspective.

But we’ll have a lot more nails to put in its coffin as time goes forth.

Tech wrote: `As your flawed quotes reflect, you're unable to perform a root cause analysis, formulate a remediation plan and then execute on it. That you have difficulty performing grade school level tasks makes your incessant self-puffery all the more absurd. It must be rather embarrassing that I had to school you on the topic. Again.

Indy: At least you’re entertaining . . . even if you can’t grasp the reality . . . but carry on . . .


Indy: Posted: July 5, 2014 6:49 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Why would deceive people here?" - Indy

Your pidgin English is so entertaining! Were you grunting while you composed this "sentence"?

Indy: Yes, you’ve got me covered all over with the occasional grammar, typo, or word . . . well done!

Now if you just had the proverbial clue in business, management, economics or even basic budgeting, we’d be getting somewhere . . .

Butt hay eye tri 2 doo beter . . . oh K?


Indy: Posted: July 5, 2014 7:01 p.m.

Tech wrote: U.S. Seen as Biggest Oil Producer After Overtaking Saudi Arabia

The U.S. will remain the world’s biggest oil producer this year after overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia as extraction of energy from shale rock spurs the nation’s economic recovery, Bank of America Corp. said.

Indy: Yes, the media hype of current production again is no doubt the carryover from the Sara Palin ‘drill, baby, drill’ slogan - point to RNC marketing of slogans.

But the reality is somewhat different.

From here: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/

The US has seen it’s ‘proven oil reserves’ go up to 33.4 billion barrels (remember when I note that the US only has about 3% of the world proven reserves . . . ), an increase of 4.5 billion barrels . . . while the US consumption is about 18.5 million barrels a year . . . roughly 6.75 billion barrels per year.

So we’re only ‘adding’ about 2/3s ‘back’ to the oil we actually use!

This is why we’re still importing about 2.25 billion barrels EACH YEAR . . . all while politicians have been promising us that we’re going to get off imports . . . for the last 40 years!!!

Pumping it out faster doesn’t make it last longer . . .

So I’m not surprised that media outlets ‘sensationalize’ the current production but keep in mind that the 6.75 billion barrels we use ‘this year’ is at ‘current consumption’ . . . apart from any ‘growth’!

We’ll get into the natural gas issue coming up . . .

Finally, for a really easy graphic that discloses the oil situation, check out: http://www.planetforlife.com/oilcrisis/oilsituation.html

This doesn’t show the recent ‘bump’ from fracking but shows the other ‘known’ large fields and when they came on line . . . very interesting . .


tech: Posted: July 5, 2014 7:48 p.m.

Indy: Yes, you’ve got me covered all over with the occasional grammar, typo, or word . . . well done!

Oh, it more than "occasional". I usually overlook it in internet fora but your incessant boasting requires ego deflation at regular intervals. As others have pointed out, your writing is grade school level and is an indicator of a lack of attention to detail that's reflected in other areas, i.e. logic, statistics, economics and general research.

Here's an example in this very thread: "…consequences of anthropologic climate change." - Indy

Here you misuse the adjective form of anthropology when the correct word would be anthropogenic.

By the way, you're still mistyping an ellipsis. Here's how: …


ricketzz: Posted: July 7, 2014 8:55 a.m.

-logic suffix means "associated of, with, about"
-genic suffix means "caused by, because of"

Correcting grammar on bulletin boards is considered gauche.


tech: Posted: July 7, 2014 2:02 p.m.

As noted above, I make an exception due to Indy's narcissism, ricketzz.


tech: Posted: July 7, 2014 2:05 p.m.

"That’s one of the reasons why it appears I know all the answers since I have the MBA plus the years of experience running a business." - Indy Posted: February 11, 2014 7:20 p.m.

http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/113798/


Indy: Posted: July 7, 2014 5:52 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Yes, you’ve got me covered all over with the occasional grammar, typo, or word . . . well done!

Oh, it more than "occasional". I usually overlook it in internet fora but your incessant boasting requires ego deflation at regular intervals. As others have pointed out, your writing is grade school level and is an indicator of a lack of attention to detail that's reflected in other areas, i.e. logic, statistics, economics and general research.

Indy: Hay, eye reelie lik yor hellp hear . . .

Tech wrote: Here's an example in this very thread: "…consequences of anthropologic climate change." - Indy

Here you misuse the adjective form of anthropology when the correct word would be anthropogenic.

Indy: Well, we’re making progress . . . at least now you get the idea!

So when you wish to avoid addressing the cause of ‘anthropogenic climate change’, you go back to criticizing grammar.

Tech wrote: By the way, you're still mistyping an ellipsis. Here's how: …

Indy: Ahgan, u soo hellpfull . . .

But let me help you understand the basics of science, engineering, business, economics and management . . . but I need your educational background to be most effective.

And again, what ‘multiple’ businesses did you run . . . can you still remember them?


Indy: Posted: July 7, 2014 5:55 p.m.

Tech wrote: "That’s one of the reasons why it appears I know all the answers since I have the MBA plus the years of experience running a business." - Indy Posted: February 11, 2014 7:20 p.m.

http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/113798/

Indy: Again, it’s always ‘entertaining’ to read your posts as you try to make up for your lack of knowledge in science, engineering, business, economics and management by staying focused on ‘grammar’????

Again, what’s your educational background?

Why not disclose it?

Why are you hiding it from the people at this forum?

For what purpose?

Inquiring minds want to know . . . and we can help you better understand the topics in play here . . . beyond grammar if you will.


tech: Posted: July 7, 2014 7:54 p.m.

"Why are you hiding it from the people at this forum?" - Indy

I'm not. It's contained in every post. Just as your illiteracy and illogic are. :-D


ricketzz: Posted: July 8, 2014 12:26 p.m.

Every shale oil well is another source of atmospheric methane, carbon dioxide. If there is nothing collecting the gas coming up with the oil it is allowed to leak and most of it is theoretically "flared". You can see flaring on the the Bakken Shale and the Eagle Ford Shale on the NASA picture of night time North America. Every one of those fuzzy fires represents a hole in the future.

The USA cannot be "energy independent" by using fuel that is killing us. Every teacup pumped out of the ground is a whole lot of carbon already sequestered (until burned). Be brave. Do what's right.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 8, 2014 2:02 p.m.

ricketzz- do you have a solar system on ur house? Do you recycle? Do u own an electric car (or hybrid)? Are your sprinklers climate controlled?

Just curious, sir. Many conservatives I know do these things not because they have been forced to but that it saves money and helps the environment.

I get a "C" on this myself. But, I am looking at getting that free climate system for the sprinklers...


ricketzz: Posted: July 9, 2014 9:35 a.m.

I don't use enough electricity to qualify. Since the panels are practically free these days I may do a system myself, all low voltage, one room at a time. I'll keep the stove and the climate control on the Mains. I have a 4 wheel drive crossover, suitable for fire roads, gets lousy mileage. When I commuted I drove a POS Celica that got 30 something. If I needed to commute now I'd get something green. I stopped using sprinklers for the duration of the drought.

I am totally a fiscal conservative, by the way. Republicans run up debt more than Democrats. I am a Green.


ricketzz: Posted: July 17, 2014 10:06 a.m.

I don't believe there are any American conservatives. Americans are libertarians and libertarians do conservative and liberal stuff. These people who call themselves "conservatives" or "liberals" are sub-American, devolved from our founding principles.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...