Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Methane Hydrate Club] Re: Do we have a Linda in the E. Pac?

Expand Messages
  • mike
    The ... What is that agenda in reference to climate? ... She does so at fundraisers sponsered by huge multi billion dollar corporations. She supports bad
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 1, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The
      > left is just<BR>
      > as likely to have a pilotical adgenda.<BR>

      What is that agenda in reference to climate?


      > <BR>
      > <BR>
      > > This is a good link:<BR>
      > > <BR>
      > > <a
      > href="http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html">http://earth
      > .agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html</a><BR>
      > <BR>
      > Thanks for the information!  I appreciate it.<BR>
      > <BR>
      > > Sallie is to Rush Dumbo is to RWN radio as to the
      > "scientific" <BR>
      > > discussion of climate.  She is political first, and then
      > waves her <BR>
      > > credentials and does great harm to the truth.<BR>
      > > <BR>
      > <BR>
      > She expresses her opinion, just like any other scientist.  Doesn't
      > she<BR>
      > have that right?<BR>
      > <BR>

      She does so at fundraisers sponsered by huge multi billion dollar
      corporations. She supports bad science and the machinary behind road
      fascism.



      > >   I will not<BR>
      > > > argue the point that there is a bioligal feedback component
      > to the<BR>
      > > > climate.  I agree with you that there is!  However,
      > my view is that<BR>
      > > > the sun, and its variations, is a much powerful
      > influence.<BR>
      > > <BR>
      > > Only in the short term.<BR>
      > <BR>
      > I must disagree.  The long term effects of solar activity will be
      > much<BR>
      > more pronounced.  The shortest cycle we know of is 11 years,
      > which<BR>
      > looks like it is part of about a 100 year cycle.  Who knows
      > what<BR>
      > cycles may be unfolding over hundreds or thousands of years?



      Well, here is an example which shows from a biological standpoint the
      human activity is a large anomaly even over huge timescales:

      http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
      tmpl=story2&cid=570&ncid=570&e=2&u=/nm/20021031/sc_nm/science_plants_dc_1
      World Plants Near Extinction Close to 50 Pct.-Study
      Thu Oct 31, 2:21 PM ET
      By Christopher Doering

      WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The percentage of the world's plants threatened
      with extinction is much larger than commonly believed, and could be as
      high as 47 percent if tropical species are included, researchers said on
      Thursday.


      AP Photo



      The study, published in the November issue of Science, challenges earlier
      research that estimated the number of species in danger of extinction was
      about 13 percent.


      Previous studies of extinct plants underestimated the numbers because
      they failed to include many plants growing in tropical countries such as
      Ecuador and Colombia.


      Plants are becoming extinct for many reasons, including global warming
      (news - web sites) and human encroachment into area habitats, said Peter
      Jorgensen, a researcher at the Missouri Botanical Gardens in St. Louis
      who coauthored the new study.


      For example, scientists discovered a single collection of the passion
      flower, a light purple flower found only in southern Ecuador, during the
      1970s, Jorgensen said. But recent trips to the region have found the
      species has since disappeared.


      Jorgensen reviewed data from 189 countries and territories and determined
      that between 310,000 and 422,000 plants -- or 22 to 47 percent -- could
      be threatened.


      In previous studies "if you can't evaluate a species you basically don't
      include it," Jorgensen said in a telephone interview.


      "Still, we don't know enough ... to go out and do something active on the
      ground to save them," he said. "Just because there are more of them
      doesn't mean it's easier."


      Identifying threatened species is a crucial step toward developing better
      management plans to protect them, but Jorgensen conceded it will take a
      large amount of money to develop such projects.


      Maintaining a global database of threatened plants would cost an
      estimated $12.1 million annually, the researchers said.


      The vast majority of plants that are threatened in tropical areas are
      those located with a wide variety of plant life or where habitat loss is
      rapidly occurring.

      As a model for their research, Jorgensen and his coauthor, Nigel Pitman
      from Duke University, analyzed more than 4,000 species that are native to
      Ecuador.

      After sifting through data and determining those that could be on the
      verge of extinction -- such as plants with small populations or which are
      located only in a small geographical area -- they determined that 83
      percent of all plants in the country are threatened.

      The findings for Ecuador are important, Jorgensen said, because the
      country has one of the most complete databases of plant species. Such
      results also can be applied to neighboring countries such as Peru and
      Colombia where data are scarce.

      "We know so little about plants in tropical regions," said
      Jorgensen. "And what really bothers me is we have to guess so much
      because we don't have enough manpower to go through all the countries."














        It
      > is a<BR>
      > known fact that stars like our sun can very their energy outputs<BR>
      > rather dramatically.  How can that not have a profound effect?<BR>
      > <BR>
      > </tt>
      >
      > <br>
      >
      > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
      >
      > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
      > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
      > <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
      > Sponsor</b></font></td>
      > </tr>
      > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
      > <td align=center width=470><TABLE WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 border=0
      > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font face=arial
      > size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br>
      > <TR>
      > <TD>
      > <a
      > href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/
      > S=1705083601:HM/A=810373/R=0/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer
      > =blrecs" target=_top><IMG
      > SRC="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_geocities/lrec2b_1_01
      > .jpg" WIDTH=185 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></a></TR></TD>
      > <TD>
      > <a
      > href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/
      > S=1705083601:HM/A=810373/R=1/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer
      > =blrecs" target=_top><IMG
      > SRC="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_geocities/lrec2d_2_02
      > .gif" WIDTH=115 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></TD>
      > </TR></a>
      > </TABLE></td>
      > </tr>
      > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
      > src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=
      > egroupmail/S=:HM/A=810373/rand=865687049"></td></tr>
      > </table>
      >
      > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
      >
      >
      > <br>
      > <tt>
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
      > methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR>
      > <BR>
      > </tt>
      > <br>
      >
      > <br>
      > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
      > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service</a>.</tt>
      > </br>
      >
      > </body></html>
      >
    • Mike Doran
      Why haven t we been told who was selling American Airlines and United Airlines stock short at 285 times the regular rate of such trade in the few days before
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 1, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Why haven't we been told who was selling American Airlines and United
        Airlines stock short at 285 times the regular rate of such trade in
        the few days before 9/11? There's that SEC working overtime for us,
        huh?

        Maybe Harvey Pitt is trying to blackmail his way into that cabinet
        post and pay raise. Not doing his job is probably way more important
        and valuable to the high and mighty?

        Yes it is about class and area based transfers of wealth:

        "...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office revised its long-term
        forecasts, citing Bush's millionaire tax cut as the largest single
        factor in shrinking the projected 10-year budget surplus from $5.6
        trillion to $1.6 trillion—a $4 trillion downswing." See:
        http://www.aflcio.org/news/2002/0131_cbo.htm

        The parties are now defined clearly by population densities and road
        fascism. Low density populations benefit directly from free use of
        roads to come into areas of high density and use the infrastructure,
        whereas high density areas don't use the roads as much per person,
        nor have the same property tax basis. It allows the rich to become
        richer and it is reflected in all of the data. This results in
        unfairness in public education, welfare, and so forth by population
        density. The voting reflects policies favoring that the transfers of
        wealth continue. To blame it on welfare is a rationalization of the
        low density areas continuing these subsidies. Wars for oil is a
        perfect example. Climate change is another subsidy that everyone will
        pay for the low density areas to continue their lifestyles.

        These subsidies are stupid for a number of basic reasons. One is it
        cant be sustained. Two we just saw with Wellstone's death--climate
        instability from Doran waves. We will see more chaotic occurances in
        the future, in my view. Three is droughts that test the hydrology
        infrastructure and our ability to produce food to feed a growing
        population. Four is Hubbert's peak. See http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
        Five is wars for oil.

        http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100102_bush_advisors.html
        Bush Advisers Planned Iraq War Since 1990s
        "Oct. 1, 2002, 17:00 PDT (FTW) -- The George W. Bush Administration's
        intentions of removing Saddam Hussein from power are not a recent
        development by any stretch of the imagination. Top White House
        officials affiliated with conservative think tanks and past
        administrations have been developing strategies for removing the
        Iraqi leader since the 1990s."
        Joe Taglieri, FTW Staff
      • David
        ... Everybody has their own ideas of how they d like to see things done, scientists included. ... road ... Road fascism?? Now there s a term I will admit I
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 6, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          > What is that agenda in reference to climate?
          >
          Everybody has their own ideas of how they'd like to see things done,
          scientists included.

          > She does so at fundraisers sponsered by huge multi billion dollar
          > corporations. She supports bad science and the machinary behind
          road
          > fascism.

          Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
          before. Please explain that to me!
        • Mike Doran
          ... Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. And no one is charged to use them. There is a gas tax, but it covers only about 1/3 of the costs
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 6, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
            > before. Please explain that to me!

            Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.

            And no one is charged to use them.

            There is a gas tax, but it covers only about 1/3 of the costs of new
            roads and repair. The rest comes out of the general fund. Of
            course, the tax doesn't touch our defense spending for wars for oil
            and so forth.

            The roads are not just land but improvements. Those improvements are
            expensive. And since the gas tax only covers 1/3 of the costs, much
            comes out of the general taxpayers funds. It is socialist/fascist--
            not a free market deal. Now, even though, for instance, the 1998
            Highway Bill was 219 billion, the largest ever by a factor of 4 and
            that is just the Feds, it doesn't really capture the lay out of
            capital over at least a hundred years on our road system. And, most
            importantly, does not figure what are roads are worth as a system.

            It should further be pointed out that cost and value for use are two
            completely different things. Example. You own a home. If you tell
            me I can live in the home for my pro rata share of 1/3 the cost of a
            new room and repairs to the living room--but nothing more AND there
            are to be 100 people living their, my pro rata share is small. And
            your house is full.

            This is the reason for gridlock, and for SUVs and rising gas milage
            despite better technology. It is the simple fact that roads are a
            HIGHLY subsidized part of our lives--far and away the
            largest "government" asset. We think nothing of the fact that our
            culture is dominated by roads now.

            But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
            percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census data.
            The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now. Recent
            studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
            years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
            women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove less.
            I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
            socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
            the "household" any more because of the greater and greater amount of
            time American families spred from their homes.

            Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities and
            small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like education
            are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new burbs,
            but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal with
            the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
            pattern that cannot be sustained.

            My thing with this subsidy and transfer of wealth is that the roads
            as a monopoly is actaully a much larger subsidy then one would think
            at first blush. That is because the whole system has incredible
            economic meaning, from truckers to commuters who live in a rich area
            and work in a high density, poor area, further causing class
            differences between wealthy and poor, between thos living in low
            density areas and those living in high density areas. I think the
            whole system is worth about 10 trillion dollars, so even to provide
            roads at tolls with simple interest at mind would lead to 1 trillion
            in tolls, which comes done to thousands per American. This kind of
            cost reflection would drive down driving. We wouldn't as a culture
            be as apt to build large homes in the middle of no where and drive
            from them in 4,000 pound SUVs to return a 5 ounce video. This is an
            incredibly wasteful use of energy.

            Fascism is the only way to describe the politics of these roads--why
            we would want to continue a subsidy that is so short sighted from and
            ecological and economic standpoint.
          • David
            ... Of course I m charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and I pay gasoline tax,
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 7, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
              >
              > > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
              > > before. Please explain that to me!
              >
              > Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.
              >
              > And no one is charged to use them.
              >

              Of course I'm charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my
              car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and I
              pay gasoline tax, all of which go to road building and maintencance.


              >
              > But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
              > percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census data.
              > The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now. Recent
              > studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
              > years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
              > women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove less.
              > I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
              > socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
              > the "household" any more because of the greater and greater amount of
              > time American families spred from their homes.

              So where does that put me? I work out of town during the week, and I
              drive 400 miles to get home on the weekends (although I should be able
              to start flying very soon, thank goodness). I live just outside of
              the city limits of a small town (30,000 people). Am I causing rot in
              the cities? Should I have to pay thousands in road user fees? Would
              you keep me from getting home to my wife?

              >
              > Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities and
              > small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like education
              > are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new burbs,
              > but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal with
              > the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
              > pattern that cannot be sustained.

              Shall we play the chicken-and-the egg thing? People went to the
              suburbs because of the fact that the big cities were already in
              serious decline. People wanted lower crime rates, lower taxes, and
              better schools for their children. Why is any of that bad?
            • Mike Doran
              ... heard ... I ... You only pay for about 1/3 of the cost of them through those taxes. But this differs from a use fee. While it is true to some degree that
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 8, 2002
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
                > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
                > >
                > > > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never
                heard
                > > > before. Please explain that to me!
                > >
                > > Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.
                > >
                > > And no one is charged to use them.
                > >
                >
                > Of course I'm charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my
                > car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and
                I
                > pay gasoline tax, all of which go to road building and maintencance.
                >
                >

                You only pay for about 1/3 of the cost of them through those taxes.
                But this differs from a use fee. While it is true to some degree
                that the more you drive the more gas tax you pay, if you break it
                down the cents you pay for gas is insignificant compared to how large
                the subsidy is for using a government asset for free.


                > >
                > > But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
                > > percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census
                data.
                > > The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now.
                Recent
                > > studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
                > > years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
                > > women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove
                less.
                > > I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
                > > socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
                > > the "household" any more because of the greater and greater
                amount of
                > > time American families spred from their homes.
                >
                > So where does that put me? I work out of town during the week, and
                I
                > drive 400 miles to get home on the weekends (although I should be
                able
                > to start flying very soon, thank goodness). I live just outside of
                > the city limits of a small town (30,000 people). Am I causing rot
                in
                > the cities? Should I have to pay thousands in road user fees?

                Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have and
                live where you live. You know, I was studying a rare tornado that
                occurred in Salt Lake City in 1999 and looking at first why tornadoes
                were rare there and why one occurred. Turns out that there are
                mountains and the Great Salt Lake, which may have some EMF
                characteristics that inhibits tornadoes. In any event, what I
                learned is that south of the City are 20 small towns--that today have
                sprawed into a seemless web of suburbia. It is like that across the
                US.


                Would
                > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
                >

                That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
                answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good idea?


                > >
                > > Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities
                and
                > > small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like
                education
                > > are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new
                burbs,
                > > but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal
                with
                > > the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
                > > pattern that cannot be sustained.
                >
                > Shall we play the chicken-and-the egg thing? People went to the
                > suburbs because of the fact that the big cities were already in
                > serious decline. People wanted lower crime rates, lower taxes, and
                > better schools for their children. Why is any of that bad?

                Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it worse
                for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
                sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we haven't
                had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from our
                activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
                road fascism.

                BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes. Sure it
                would discourage driving, but do you honestly think it makes any
                sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
                Really?
              • David
                ... And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there, done that, couldn t afford the t-shirt. ... Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 8, 2002
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have and
                  > live where you live.

                  And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there, done
                  that, couldn't afford the t-shirt.


                  > Would
                  > > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
                  > >
                  >
                  > That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
                  > answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good idea?
                  >

                  Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do with roads?


                  > Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it worse
                  > for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
                  > sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we haven't
                  > had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from our
                  > activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
                  > road fascism.

                  Well, I live in the largest city in my part of the state! It really
                  isn't big enough to have suburbs, so I guess that's not a good
                  example. So, let's take where I am working, which is in the
                  Washington, DC area. There are definitely a LOT of suburbs here. In
                  fact, I stay in one suburb (Chantilly, VA), and work in another
                  (Reston, VA). So what would you have us do? Every leave the suburb
                  towns and move to DC proper? That would be impossible! There's no
                  way there would be enough housing to hold all the people, never mind
                  the fact that many of the jobs are in the suburbs as well. You're
                  assuming that everybody commutes to the "big city" to work. That
                  isn't always the case.
                  >
                  > BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes.

                  Yeah, you would eliminate a lot of driving. You would also eliminate
                  people's ability to get to their jobs, schools, etc.

                  >but do you honestly think it makes any
                  > sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
                  > Really?

                  No, of course it doesn't make sense to drive that way. No argument there.
                • Mike Doran
                  ... and ... done ... Sadly, as Hubbert s peak digs in to this economy based on cheap fossil fuels and MASSIVE subsidies that encourages driving powered on that
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 9, 2002
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have
                    and
                    > > live where you live.
                    >
                    > And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there,
                    done
                    > that, couldn't afford the t-shirt.
                    >

                    Sadly, as Hubbert's peak digs in to this economy based on cheap
                    fossil fuels and MASSIVE subsidies that encourages driving powered on
                    that cheap fuel, I don't think you or I understand the meaning of
                    unemployment.

                    >
                    > > Would
                    > > > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > > That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
                    > > answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good
                    idea?
                    > >
                    >
                    > Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do with roads?
                    >

                    The free food socialism--or subsidy based farming, did not work.
                    Lines for food were long (gridlock) and soon the food was gone. A
                    black market evolved (pols on the dole from big oil like Bush for
                    wars for oil, more roads, etc). A lack of market leads to
                    corruption.

                    >
                    > > Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it
                    worse
                    > > for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
                    > > sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we
                    haven't
                    > > had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from
                    our
                    > > activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
                    > > road fascism.
                    >
                    > Well, I live in the largest city in my part of the state! It really
                    > isn't big enough to have suburbs, so I guess that's not a good
                    > example. So, let's take where I am working, which is in the
                    > Washington, DC area. There are definitely a LOT of suburbs here.
                    In
                    > fact, I stay in one suburb (Chantilly, VA), and work in another
                    > (Reston, VA). So what would you have us do? Every leave the suburb
                    > towns and move to DC proper? That would be impossible! There's no
                    > way there would be enough housing to hold all the people, never mind
                    > the fact that many of the jobs are in the suburbs as well. You're
                    > assuming that everybody commutes to the "big city" to work. That
                    > isn't always the case.

                    Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now slowing.
                    We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth transfers
                    from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the Soviet
                    Union, there were probably some people who could not afford food. To
                    them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow the
                    food for the government, that was work for them as well. But with
                    the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up and
                    you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and a
                    black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for a
                    false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that suburbs
                    are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns have,
                    like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare. The suburbs
                    are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                    point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                    assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                    frightening, because we now largely have a false market that faces
                    shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind of
                    political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations of
                    oil, it could get even worse.


                    > >
                    > > BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes.
                    >
                    > Yeah, you would eliminate a lot of driving. You would also
                    eliminate
                    > people's ability to get to their jobs, schools, etc.
                    >

                    See above. The question isn't whether this is a hard choice, but
                    whether to make the choice with planning and with time so that its
                    impace isn't devistating. Sometimes false market problems are solved
                    with more false markets. EG subsidizing the heck out of renewables.
                    But for the suburban power in governemnt to take the position that
                    they are the power that is against false markets, against the
                    government involved in their lives is a LIE--just like his daddy,
                    read my lips. Big lie. Effective lie, really. The roads ARE
                    government, its largest part. To not regulate them, incorporate them
                    in a regulated market economy is short sighted and wrong.

                    > >but do you honestly think it makes any
                    > > sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
                    > > Really?
                    >
                    > No, of course it doesn't make sense to drive that way. No argument
                    there.

                    Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't eliminate
                    all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will prevent
                    this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and market
                    as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                    administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests of
                    big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.

                    BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.
                  • David
                    ... Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many of them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies, how about the
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now slowing.
                      > We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth transfers
                      > from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the Soviet
                      > Union, there were probably some people who could not afford food. To
                      > them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow the
                      > food for the government, that was work for them as well. But with
                      > the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up and
                      > you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and a
                      > black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for a
                      > false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that suburbs
                      > are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns have,
                      > like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare.

                      Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many of
                      them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies,
                      how about the ones that pay the farmers NOT to grow certain crops in
                      order to keep the prices artificially high?! ARGH!!

                      > The suburbs
                      > are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                      > point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                      > assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                      > frightening, because we now largely have a false market that faces
                      > shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind of
                      > political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations of
                      > oil, it could get even worse.

                      I do agree with you here to a large extent. Part of the US interest
                      in the Middle East centers around oil. No doubt about that. We've
                      gotten ourselves into a position where we don't have a choice. Its
                      either keep that cheap oil coming in or risk economic collapse. The
                      sad thing is that the US has enough oil reserves to be self-sufficient
                      on oil if all oil-bearing regions were opened to exploration. We've
                      got a large number of capped-off oil wells, too. Its cheaper to
                      import oil than it is to pump our own out of the ground.

                      > Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't eliminate
                      > all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will prevent
                      > this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and market
                      > as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                      > administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests of
                      > big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.

                      I disagree. If you start putting tolls in the amount of thousands of
                      dollars per person per year on roads, it will have a devastating
                      effect. How can the average person even afford to get to work, let
                      alone anything else??

                      >
                      > BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.

                      Thanks! Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally!
                    • Mike Doran
                      The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS Inauguration Day Now Change Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly

                        BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS
                        Inauguration Day Now Change
                        Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                        Unemployment Rate 4.2 5.7 Up 36%
                        Budget $281b Surplus $157b Deficit Squandered
                        Jobs 111.7 million 109.6 million Loss of 2.1 Million

                        or indirectly through population density and the investment in roads.
                        The problem is we are reaching the point where even on cheap fuel the
                        economy can have sustained growth.

                        I am one who thinks our addiction to cheap oil with tolls over time
                        would NOT hurt the economy as much as you think but concentrate it
                        and change its character to infact make us LESS dependant on a
                        foriegn resource. A false market leads to a number of problems, the
                        least of which, as we discuss here, is changes to biological
                        feedbacks.

                        Speaking of which--check out this link:


                        http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/yesterday_prt.html

                        The severe weather matched the strike activity and really kicked in
                        as the front went above the Gaia active GOM. Now the strike activity
                        is along the Atlantic coast and I'll bet you are getting strikes.

                        Indeed, the solar activity matched well with that trough and the Gaia
                        conditions and the positive SOI . . .
                        --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now
                        slowing.
                        > > We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth
                        transfers
                        > > from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the
                        Soviet
                        > > Union, there were probably some people who could not afford
                        food. To
                        > > them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow
                        the
                        > > food for the government, that was work for them as well. But
                        with
                        > > the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up
                        and
                        > > you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and
                        a
                        > > black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for
                        a
                        > > false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that
                        suburbs
                        > > are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns
                        have,
                        > > like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare.
                        >
                        > Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many
                        of
                        > them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies,
                        > how about the ones that pay the farmers NOT to grow certain crops in
                        > order to keep the prices artificially high?! ARGH!!
                        >
                        > > The suburbs
                        > > are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                        > > point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                        > > assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                        > > frightening, because we now largely have a false market that
                        faces
                        > > shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind
                        of
                        > > political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations
                        of
                        > > oil, it could get even worse.
                        >
                        > I do agree with you here to a large extent. Part of the US interest
                        > in the Middle East centers around oil. No doubt about that. We've
                        > gotten ourselves into a position where we don't have a choice. Its
                        > either keep that cheap oil coming in or risk economic collapse. The
                        > sad thing is that the US has enough oil reserves to be self-
                        sufficient
                        > on oil if all oil-bearing regions were opened to exploration. We've
                        > got a large number of capped-off oil wells, too. Its cheaper to
                        > import oil than it is to pump our own out of the ground.
                        >
                        > > Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't
                        eliminate
                        > > all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will
                        prevent
                        > > this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and
                        market
                        > > as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                        > > administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests
                        of
                        > > big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.
                        >
                        > I disagree. If you start putting tolls in the amount of thousands
                        of
                        > dollars per person per year on roads, it will have a devastating
                        > effect. How can the average person even afford to get to work, let
                        > alone anything else??
                        >
                        > >
                        > > BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.
                        >
                        > Thanks! Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally!
                      • David
                        ... And for this, please send your thank-you letter to Clinton/Gore. The recession (or whatever you want to call it) was already in full stride when Bush took
                        Message 11 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
                          > The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly
                          >
                          > BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS
                          > Inauguration Day Now Change
                          > Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                          > Unemployment Rate 4.2 5.7 Up 36%
                          > Budget $281b Surplus $157b Deficit Squandered
                          > Jobs 111.7 million 109.6 million Loss of 2.1 Million

                          And for this, please send your thank-you letter to Clinton/Gore. The
                          recession (or whatever you want to call it) was already in full
                          stride when Bush took office. The "surplus" never existed anywhere
                          except on paper, and it was based on sustaining a certain economic
                          growth rate. Again, another wonderful Clinton/Gore trick.

                          > http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/yesterday_prt.html
                          >
                          > The severe weather matched the strike activity and really kicked in
                          > as the front went above the Gaia active GOM. Now the strike
                          activity
                          > is along the Atlantic coast and I'll bet you are getting strikes.
                          >
                          > Indeed, the solar activity matched well with that trough and the
                          Gaia
                          > conditions and the positive SOI . . .

                          If you mean by "strikes" severe weather, we sure got it. According
                          to CNN, more than 50 tornados touched down throughout the east. 35
                          killed, and a bunch more unaccounted for. Nasty.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.