Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > green energy      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 OldFolkie
Joined: 6/8/2008
Msg: 101
view profile
History
green energyPage 5 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
The Tennesee Center For Policy Research is a Conservative think tank. They used publically available utility costs in their report, requoted by Snopes, and liberally (just kidding) quoted by fzr. That data is three years old and more. In the years since then, the Gore's have indeed poured their own money into retrofitting that energy dinosaur they bought. It seems some of you believe that MSNBC must be lying because the facts they present conflict with your preconcieved notions. C'est la vie. NOTHING I can say will open your eyes to truth. It is in the nature of Conservatives to hold on to antique notions and values, believing, so it seems, that all Americans should conform to some ideal of "Father Knows Best" or "Leave It To Beaver" as the model for the "American Way".
You refuse to recognize actual facts, current within the last two years (once again I'll spells this out simply so you can understand....the Tennessee Center's data WAS correct, but it was based on utility bills from the previous two years, 2005-2006). It would seem you prefer to dwell in your antiquated delusions. Fine. Enjoy yourselves. The rest of America, and the World will be moving on to create a better world, not only for us, but for you as well (in spite of yourselves).
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 102
green energy
Posted: 5/14/2009 6:41:00 AM
Folkie did you not read the article, I think the thinking that won't change is yours. I am not a conservative all though I may agree with some of there issues. The article even states that he did some renovations. I think it's your pre conceived notions, that can't admit your savior of the planet is a hypocrite. They may be a conservative think tank but the article is a year newer than the MSNBC one, and the stats are stated clearly before and after renovations.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 103
view profile
History
green energy
Posted: 5/14/2009 10:43:29 AM
[quote[Question: Why isn't this a matter of states rights.

A lot of the oil and other minerals are in the West. And much of the land in western states is owned by the U.S.--I think more than 80% of Arizona is federal land. The Bureau of Land Management, the USDA's Forestry Service, Defense Dept. test and gunnery ranges, Indian reservations, national wildlife and wilderness areas, etc.--each one accounts for its share.

The idea is to make these lands useful, so the government agency involved usually grants leases to private firms to take out timber, oil, other minerals, etc. When these states were admitted to the U.S., it only passed title to part of the lands within each one's borders to that state. A state can allow a private firm to extract natural resources, too, either by selling or leasing property rights. I'd guess the oil fields in the L.A. area--Baldwin Hills, Signal Hill, etc.--were developed this way.

An outright "fee simple" sale of land includes all three "estates" in property--the land surface, the ground below it, and the airspace above it to a reasonable height (e.g. 200 feet.) Or, a lease might cover just the right to underground oil, say, but not to the land on the surface.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 104
view profile
History
green energy
Posted: 5/14/2009 11:58:00 AM

It seems some of you believe that MSNBC must be lying because the facts they present conflict with your preconcieved notions.


I don't believe that at all. I'm sure some of what MSNBC reports is true, and I have no idea whether it is in this case. But I don't think it's a very credible source of facts in general. The reason is not that I don't agree with the views of its commentators--it's that they express those views at all. That's what makes MSNBC a commentary and opinion channel, rather than a reliable news source.

The commenters I've seen there don't even pretend to be objective--witness all the snickering asides last month about "teabagging" being a slang term for a homosexual act. The obvious purpose was to belittle the protestors themselves as incredibly lame and unaware, in contrast with the snickerers at MSNBC, who were well-versed in this slang. Attack the protest itself by mocking its supporters--political debate Jerry Springer style.

As inferior as we all know traditional American family life was, when compared to the glories of today, you might just pity conservatives for their fond attachment to it. But for some reason, you toss in a swipe at the "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle in a discussion of the technical facts about Mr. Gore's house. Maybe you recall something about Ward's lavish use of wood in the fireplace, or June's fondness for high-phosphate cleaning products, that galls you even today.

Why question the convictions and motives of people you disagree with, rather than just challenge their claims with facts? Leave that stuff to MSNBC. Unless you know for certain someone's intentionally making false statements--and can prove it--I can't see why you should question their good faith.
 OldFolkie
Joined: 6/8/2008
Msg: 105
view profile
History
green energy
Posted: 5/14/2009 7:32:37 PM
You are quite right, Matchlight.

I was indulging in unwarranted hyperbole that had nothing to do with the facts as presented by both The Tennessee Policy Center or MSNBC. Since the alleged facts given by MSNBC are so easily proven either correct or as falsehoods, I tend to think that they actually did some research before presenting their article. It has to be embarassing for any news organization to be caught in an outright lie or sloppy research. But no single organization, be it Fox or MSNBC can be totally relied on. Which is a pity, I suppose. I do tend to believe facts presented on NPR or PBS, but that's probably just because I hug trees. Although....I can't think of a case where they presented lies as facts, but again, I may be wrong.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 106
view profile
History
green energy
Posted: 5/14/2009 9:56:56 PM
^^^^^^Thanks for being a good guy about it. I only wish more people on these forums would show the integrity you do.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 107
green energy
Posted: 5/14/2009 10:09:02 PM

As inferior as we all know traditional American family life was, when compared to the glories of today, you might just pity conservatives for their fond attachment to it.


The Leave it to Beaver lifestyle would have been wonderful, had anybody actually lived it. I don't know anyone who did, do you?

Also, the lifestyle doesn't promote resilience in any way--not in character nor in economic terms. It is a far cry from the Yoeman Farmer ideal of American life. In fact, the situation we have today is the logical progression of 3 generations of that lifestyle being set out as an unattainable norm. We aren't all supermodels, our families aren't all Norman Rockwell, and worse things happen than Lumpy getting the mumps.

We don't have to fit a cookie cutter mold to fit in or to work together toward a better life for our descendents and a more realistic preparation for it.
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 108
view profile
History
green energy
Posted: 5/14/2009 11:53:00 PM
In regards to Al's Tennessee home

Appears he added a pool and quite a large addition to the existing 9000 sq-ft house. The numbers reported for his electrial energy usuage are all over the map, but I beleive the numbers in the 15,000 KWH to 18,ooo KWH monthly use are in error, or he has quite an extensive use of power used for computers and servers.

The amount of glass in the existing structure doen't appear to be excessive and its a two story structure. If you take 18,000 KWH /month thats 25 KWH/hr 24-hours a day.

I live in Southern California and have a deep well pump and my usuage is less than 1/30 of Gores home. I've been around energy for some time and I tend to think someone took advantage of an extremely high monthly bill and extrapolated the numbers. Gores electric bill could have been due to constuction usuage, a electrical short, or just a bad meter reading.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/29/al-gore-snubs-earth-hour/

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&lr=&num=50&q=312+lynnwood+blvd+nashville+tn&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&gl=us&ei=pQINSvy9FpbItAOao5jrAg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 109
green energy
Posted: 5/15/2009 2:34:50 AM
JackDiamond

Good post earlier about the size of the house.

No matter how efficient of inefficient Gore's house is it's pretty damn big. What a great example to the third world. He's right down there with the NIMBY folks. I myself would not lecture Africa while making additions in sq ft.

One of my earlier posts called for rewarding money to those who made green energy and made it cheap. The way of the world right now seems to be to reward failure. Sigh.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 110
green energy
Posted: 5/17/2009 1:18:22 PM
First let me say that I am all for environmental issues but the cost is prohibitive.
Here is what I mean.
I will get a tax deduction if I go solar on my house. Problem is I don,t have the $25,000 to lay out in the first place, and I will not go further in debt to do it as the real payoff takes 20 years.
I will get a tax deduction if I get a green vehicle. Don't have the $20,000 to lay out in the first place. Also I currently drive Blazer that is a gas hog but I have no car payment and my insurance is nill. So what I spend on gas is significantly less than what a car payment and full coverage insurance would be on a new green car.
I would bet that allot of Americans are in this type of situation, the single mom etc. But yet the government has plans to start, for lack of better term, fining us through taxes. Need a better solution than this.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 111
view profile
History
green energy
Posted: 5/17/2009 2:36:54 PM
^^^^You hit on something I've never liked about the environmental movement in general--especially as the federal government's adopted it. It's almost entirely coercive. It starts with the assumption that certain actions are best for everyone. And therefore, we should have laws that discriminate against everyone who doesn't take those actions, whether it's using certain construction materials, producing cars that use less than a certain amount of fuel, disposing of rubbish in a certain way, landscaping their properties only with certain types of plants, installing only certain plumbing and electrical fixtures, etc., etc.

Sometimes, by flat out eliminating certain products, environmental laws just make them unavailable to people who have uses for them. That new citrus degreaser just doesn't work like the old solvent? Too bad--but think how much safer it is for the streams and fish. What's that? Your shop is in the desert? Well, that's one of those things--if we made an exception for you, everyone else would want one, too. Don't be surprised if we're all forced to use only a certain kind of toilet paper before long. It's rule by Washington, extended through the states down to every city planning department, local developer, and ordinary person.

But for 40 years now, these laws and their reach have continued to grow--to the point where CO2 is now a "pollutant" for purposes of clean air. As someone who's studies the origins of federal environmental laws, I know the members of Congress who created the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, etc. never intended them to intrude nearly this far on the property rights of Americans. And yet these laws have created tens or even hundreds of thousands of jobs, both within and outside of government.

The people who directly profit from the huge network of environmental laws, agencies, and rules, resist every attempt to prune them back. And a clean environment sounds so appealing that much of the American public, too, consistently supports all this. Trying to argue that the cost of all these wonderful things, not only in money, but also in personal freedoms, is ridiculously high--as most studies of the federal environmental laws show--is almost like trying to argue against Santa, puppies, and apple pie.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 112
green energy
Posted: 5/18/2009 10:17:36 AM
fx, and Matchlight,

You both make very good points. However, the situation isn't just that there are extreme environmentalists want to impose their ideology on us all regardless of the costs. A lot of the current lack of progress and high cost of entry has to do with the political resistance and bad blood between Capitalist ideologues and Liberal idealogues and how they have each co-opted legitimate environmental concerns to further their struggles for power.

Why don't we have cheap solar panels now? Because 20 years ago the executives of power companies and their friendly regulators decided that environmentalism was a communist plot that would only hurt ther bottom lines. They refused to make meaningful investments in the basic research that would allow panels to be manufacturable at low cost, or at high enough volume to be produced at low unit cost. There are still people in power who see the environmental movement that way.

There is nothing more expensive on this Earth than a new computer chip plant. But sell enough computers and the unit cost goes way down. The same is true for solar cells, except that the solar cells are uniform at the molecular lavel could therefore be manufactured in much less costly factories.

What I'm saying is not that there aren't Luddite bad actors on the environmental side. Of course there are. But there are also Oligarchist bad actors on the business side, who find it very convenient to have laws passed that allow anyone who can afford the high price to adapt (e.g., virtually no one), but put up massive resistance to any and every change that might make a meaningful difference in our consmption rates. They just love these sham laws that give the appearance of helping the environment without actually doing anything.

I hope that you'll point your incisive minds at them and their roles too.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 113
view profile
History
green energy
Posted: 5/18/2009 11:52:01 AM

They refused to make meaningful investments in the basic research that would allow panels to be manufacturable at low cost, or at high enough volume to be produced at low unit cost. There are still people in power who see the environmental movement that way.


You know that any corporation's sole reason for existence is to make a profit. I doubt that whichever corporate executives you're referring to would have cared if Osama bin Laden himself had come up with a design for a photovoltaic panel--they would have invested in it, if they'd been convinced it would be profitable. Executives senior enough to be deciding where to invest large amounts of a firm's resources don't get as high as they are by letting personal prejudices compromise profits. A lot of study goes into their decisions--including those about R&D.

I've heard a similar "bad blood" argument about ranchers' refusal to tolerate the reintroduction of wolves near their lands. The notion is that they're ignorant rednecks, whose hatred of meddling, vegetarian tree huggers is so venomous they kill the wolves just to spite them, no amount how much they're paid for the livestock they lose. I don't buy it. If these ranchers were that irrational, or dimwitted, they could never stay in business. If they were fully compensated for the costs of having the wolves around, they'd be indifferent about it. I suspect Fish & Wildlife only reimburses them the replacement value of the livestock, which ignores what the nuisance costs them in time, stress, vigilance, protective measures, etc.
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 114
green energy
Posted: 5/18/2009 12:43:29 PM
GREEN BUILDINGS.
As to a newly-constructed “green” building, presumably, the issue of energy leakage has been solved. Not so. On average, commercial buildings experience 17 percent more energy loss every one to two years—an alarmingly high rate. To put it in context, a typical 100,000 square-foot office typically spends $200,000 a year on electricity. That amounts to an undetected annual burn rate of $34,000. With more than 370,000 commercial buildings exceeding 50,000 square feet in the U.S., simple math bears out the magnitude of this largely invisible problem.

There are literally thousands of hard-to-detect variables that can rob commercial buildings of their annual energy spend, ranging from electrical, mechanical and HVAC system faults to anomalies in building tolerances, the impact of seasonal change, and the influence of changing tenant occupancy rates. New technologies aimed at fixing the problem—under the banner of “Automated Continuous Commissioning”—are on the horizon. Instead of configuring a building for optimal performance just once with occasional “tune-ups,” ACC performs 24-7 monitoring and analysis of a building’s energy consuming ecosystem. Looking at the inevitability of building systems degradation—which can reach levels as high as 25 percent over a one to two year period—the need for ACC is clear to detect degradation from things mundane dirt buildup, improper control use, changes in the operating demands on the system, etc. At the root of the problem is too much reliance on evaluating building performance via a “snapshot in time” approach. Until recently, re-commissioning conducted every few years with scheduled maintenance was considered state of the art, and was assumed to be the best way to minimize unforeseen problems.

To the benefit of the building industry, there has been a huge proliferation in data management and analytical capabilities in the sustainable space in recent years. By continuously collecting internal data about what’s going on inside a building, plus external data on things like the weather changes and utility pricing, the limitations on operations’ forecasting are beginning to lift. And with ACC solutions making their way to market, energy efficiency is finally evolving from buzzword to benchmark.

SOLAR POWER
Solar power is not only expensive (it still often cannot pencil out a competitive return on investment compared to other energy production methods), but it is clean to operate but, ironically, filthy to acquire. The main ingredient in producing solar panels is polysilicon. But the byproduct of polysilicon production--silicon tetrachloride --is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards. Solar panel production also involves lead, mercury and cadmium.

Polysilicon has been in very short supply for four years due to high demand for solar panels and has soared from $20 per kilogram to $300 per kilogram in the past five years. Chinese companies are frantically building new polysilicon factories that will triple the world output of polysilicon when completed. But the Chinese are less concerned about waste disposal than with doing business. Because of the environmental hazard, polysilicon companies in the developed world recycle the compound, putting it back into the production process. But the high investment costs and time, and the enormous energy consumption required for heating the substance to more than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit for the recycling, have discouraged many factories in China from doing the same. There is such a severe shortage of polysilicon that the Chinese government is willing to overlook this issue for now, and looks the other way regarding illegal dumping that would get you arrested in the United States.

When exposed to humid air, silicon tetrachloride transforms into acids and poisonous hydrogen chloride gas, which can cause respiratory problems. When dumped on the land, it scorches the ground. When environmental protection technology is used, the cost to produce one ton is approximately $84,500. But Chinese companies are making it at $21,000 to $56,000 a ton by not using proper pollution controls.

The Communists will make sure they earn the coin at the expense of the present and future health of their workers and residents of factory areas. So what's this blather about the big bad Capitalist Pigs?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 115
green energy
Posted: 5/19/2009 8:51:23 AM

I've heard a similar "bad blood" argument about ranchers' refusal to tolerate the reintroduction of wolves near their lands. The notion is that they're ignorant rednecks, whose hatred of meddling, vegetarian tree huggers is so venomous they kill the wolves just to spite them ...


Different people have different utility functions. For example: in the 1950s and '60s, there were some retailers who would never do business with black customers, even if they could have doubled their profits.

There are far too many who see our situation as a culture war, and who will resist any positive change proposed by the "other" side because of a perception that to give any quarter would advantage that "side."

It is simply naive to ignore this aspect of the debate. You weaken your case by failing to acknowledge it. Hate can have a powerful and lasting effect. Those who equate environmentalism with Communism have thus damaged our responsiveness as a society.

Those who equate the profit motive with rapacious greed also do damage.

I am well aware that private businesses must make short-term profits, and in the short term, the more oil we burn the more profit fuel producers and distributors make. Their lobbyists killed federal funding for basic research into appropriate technology that would have come in very handy right about now. There is profit, and then there is triumph. Those motivaors are not the same, but some who advocate Capitalism fail to see the distinction and are perfectly willing to disadvantage their future customer base for an immediate win.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 116
view profile
History
green energy
Posted: 5/19/2009 1:19:21 PM

For example: in the 1950s and '60s, there were some retailers who would never do business with black customers, even if they could have doubled their profits.


I don't know just who these retailers were. But unless a retailer's found some magic way to eliminate competition, it's going to find that--everything else being equal--voluntarily foregoing half its profits makes it impossible to stay in business for long.

Everyone acknowledges that personal prejudices exist, and that they sometimes influence economic decisions. But that doesn't explain why anyone should expect them to in most cases, or in any given case. In my example about the ranchers, there's no reason to assume any of them, let alone most, would act irrationally. Just the opposite--demanding a premium to salve your prejudices increases the cost of your transactions. Competitors that don't let their prejudices get in the way of business will gradually put irrational operators out of business, and come to dominate the market.

I'm content to let entry and competition control excessive profits--greed, as you call it. Why should the state have any more power to control that than individuals do, through their choices? It's a basic rule in economics that wherever entry into a market isn't artificially restricted, profits tend toward zero. That's what licenses, guilds, unions, qualifying boards, etc. are all about--the idea is to keep new people from coming in and undercutting what those who are already there can charge for their goods and services. Of course, that makes consumers have to pay more than they otherwise would.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 117
green energy
Posted: 5/19/2009 1:23:19 PM

Everyone acknowledges that personal prejudices exist, and that they sometimes influence economic decisions. But that doesn't explain why anyone should expect them to in most cases, or in any given case. In my example about the ranchers, there's no reason to assume any of them, let alone most, would act irrationally. Just the opposite--demanding a premium to salve your prejudices increases the cost of your transactions. Competitors that don't let their prejudices get in the way of business will gradually put irrational operators out of business, and come to dominate the market.


I agree with you that this is how it ought to work. However, they don't call it "political economy" for nothing.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 118
green energy
Posted: 5/19/2009 1:40:50 PM

But it is like anything else, there is some good, and some bad in most things... We don't need to get rid of it because something failed... we only need to work on doing it better, and learn to make fewer mistakes.


Agreed. One of the mistakes we need to avoid is in thinking that things work the way we think they should, and that the people who claim to agree with our views will necessarily or consistently act in accordance with their claims.

The story of W. Edwards Deming is a case in point. Do you know why the Japanese are cleaning our clocks when it comes to the car industry and electronics manufacturing? They took the principles of total quality management that Dr. Deming developed for us during WW II and applied them. Our own executives in the private sector just weren't interested. Those methods were not developed by the market, but by primary researchers funded by our government.

Business people who are in a position to open new markets want open competition. Those who are in a position to lose existing markets if a disruptive technology takes hold do everything they can to resist open competition. They have to in order to protect the profits of their stockholders. Every technology that increases our overall fuel efficiency is disruptive to fuel and conveyance manufacturers. They even resist SAFETY features for goodness sake. When they talk about environmentalists being a threat to markets, they're really talking about _their_existing_market_shares._

In the late 1800s and early 1900s it was possible for a lone inventor in a garage to revolutionize technology. But those days are long gone. Jobs and Wozniak put together the peripherals around a computer chip to make it usable at home, but the chip itself was manufactured in a very sophisticated factory.

The market is reactive, not proactive. By itself, it cannot innovate. It can only respond to innovations that are developed independently of day-to-day commerce. Speculators in the market can bet on whatever innovations they think are likely to hit, but it is only venture capitalists who independently fund research projects, and those are all applied, with a projected payback of less than 7 years. The core innovations for them all come from primary researchers housed in universities or other such institutions, who are free to think creatively and who are not burdened with the need to pay dividends or maintain perceived share value.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 119
green energy
Posted: 6/26/2009 11:45:35 AM
Delta cutbacks put Valley farm town on edge

Luis Cervantes walks with his daughter, Fernanda Cervantes, 7, past their former home, which the family lost to foreclosure last October in Mendota. Cervantes lost his job as a farm foreman. MENDOTA – In the San Joaquin Valley, the most productive farmland on earth, panic is more abundant than the crops that usually blanket the ground.

Drought and environmental concerns have led to severe cuts in irrigation water deliveries from Northern California over the past year, and unemployment in this town of 10,000 is approaching 40 percent. Mendota may be proud to call itself the Cantaloupe Capital of the World, but with California in danger of a third year of drought and more water cuts planned, people wonder if they'll get enough rice and beans to scrape by. It took volunteers at the Westside Youth Center's monthly food giveaway less than three hours, not the normal two days, to distribute a record 750 boxes of a few days' worth of groceries.

Much of the debate over how much water to pump out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for thirsty farms to the south has focused on the fish endangered by deteriorating conditions in the estuary. But thousands of people here and in other little San Joaquin Valley towns are worried about the human toll: They fear that without water, they won't be called back to work as the growing season heats up. "They're worrying about the fish but not about the humans' life," said Jose Ruiz, 42, a foreman still clinging to the job he's had since 1979 with a vegetable firm in Mendota.

At one end of town, Maria Avila de Romero can't believe that in America's cornucopia, she has had so little work for so long that she has to ration milk and boil it to stretch it past the expiration date. Her $61 weekly unemployment has run out. In another neighborhood, Luis Cervantes, 38, and a father of four, stared into the brand-new house he lost to foreclosure in October that now stands empty.

Cervantes was a vegetable farm foreman who earned good money, but his hours were steadily cut until he also was laid off. The crisis in Mendota offers a glimpse into a sober future. Without a major restructuring of how water is moved in California, the Central Valley's anchor industry faces a dramatic decline.

"Why is nobody helping?" asked Mendota Mayor Robert Silva, who has a message for urban folk: "Get away from your lattes and see the real world. This is California, too." Plantings, harvests, jobs cut American consumers may not realize that a vast quantity of their food comes from here, Silva and others say. And if it isn't going to come from here, then consumers, too, must prepare to swallow some big changes.

It's no bluff, the farm industry warns, that food from other countries will fill the vacuum. For decades, water has been diverted from the Delta via canals to Los Angeles. That water created a farm behemoth in the Central Valley that produces more than 250 products.

Eighty percent of the world's almonds grow in the Central Valley, and the land fanning out around Mendota yields most of California's processed tomatoes, which are 45 percent of the world total. Western Fresno County alone produces 95 percent of U.S. lettuce sold in April and October.

Probably half the 600,000 acres in the area's Westlands Water District will not be planted or brought to harvest this year, district managers estimate. Spring lettuce plantings are at 9,000 acres, compared with 16,000 last year, said Fresno County Supervisor Phil Larsen. About 130,000 acres are permanent nut and pomegranate trees and grapevines that must be watered to survive.

Some farmers will buy water on the open market to keep orchards alive but not invest in developing a crop. Farmers with wells can irrigate, and those who can are sinking new wells at more than $600,000 each. But drawing from groundwater also raises environmental concerns.

A University of California study takes stock of what to expect: Up to $2.2 billion could be lost in the Central Valley this year, and up to 80,000 jobs. The shock will inevitably reverberate through a regional economy staggering from the housing collapse and recession. "I want (Gov.) Schwarzenegger to list me on the California endangered species list," said farmer Todd Allen, whose family has farmed outside Mendota for more than 30 years.

Allen said this year he won't plant cotton, known as a water guzzler. Last year, he laid off three of six permanent workers, one of whom had been with the farm for decades. He is growing only wheat now, relying on rainfall but no irrigation water.

No one in Mendota denies that many already struggle because much farm work is seasonal and pays relatively low wages. Spikes in unemployment are normal, but work has usually bloomed with the crops – until now. "We are facing catastrophe," said Maria de los Angeles Mendiola, 38, who wonders if she'll ever be called back to pack melons and hoe vegetables.

Residents fear the future Mendiola's daughter finished homework in a corner of a room at Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church one evening, while Mendiola and others huddled around a table to recite Scripture in Spanish and try to harness their fear. Those assembled were a cross-section of Mendota's population, which resembles many other Central Valley towns. The city is more than 90 percent Latino, and a mix of U.S.

citizens and legal and illegal immigrants, often within the same family. Central Americans are a big presence, and stores advertise money wiring to Mexican and Salvadoran provinces. "We must remain close to God," Mendiola suggested to her friends.

"He will not defraud us. He will help us find a way to eat." Undocumented laborer Gustavo Garcia, 47, prayed and then went home to finish packing his truck to seek work on the Central Coast. Ruben Martinez, 50, a naturalized U.S.

citizen and out-of-work truck driver who used to haul farm products, prayed for work. And he prayed for his wife, who has cancer and went back to Mexico, where they could afford treatment. Juan Arambula, the area's Democratic state assemblyman, compared unemployment figures in his area to those in the Great Depression.

Those are just the official numbers, he said, which leave out the undocumented. Even if they pay into the system, illegal immigrants typically don't try to collect unemployment, preferring to avoid scrutiny. Arambula, who rose from immigrant farmworker origins to attend Harvard and University of California, Berkeley, chides some environmentalists for "minimizing" the impact here of job loss.

"I know we're going toward a service economy," Arambula said. "But a farmer in my district asked me how are we going to survive just shining each other's shoes?" "We also need to make products we want to buy from each other," Arambula said. "If we don't have agriculture in the Central Valley, what is going to replace it?" Struggling for answers Carolee Krieger, a state water activist in Santa Barbara, said she doesn't have a good answer yet for what could replace farming.

Perhaps "green jobs," she said. In fact, a solar energy plant and federal prison are being built in Mendota, but those employment prospects don't allay the anxiety over loss of so many farm jobs. Krieger is president of the California Water Impact Network, C-WIN, which has fought to preserve the Delta and its endangered fish, including salmon.

One of her fellow activists caused a cultural firestorm recently and resigned from C-WIN after he lashed out at the farm industry in a TV interview. Lloyd Carter of Fresno labeled farmworkers' kids as uneducated, criminal and welfare users. Krieger called his remarks "very sad." She said she feels great sympathy for farmworkers, but also for California fishermen who were idled last year to protect salmon.

State and federal water officials are to blame for creating a mess with poor management, Krieger said, and for allowing agribusiness to grow addicted to a fragile resource. "Those people were being foolish," she said, "if they thought it was an endless spigot." At Mendota's Di Amici Cafe, which has free wireless service and some big-city sophistication, owner Sam Rubio talks of his hometown's predicament. "I used to go to protests to save the salmon when I was in college," said Rubio, 25, the son of a Mexican farm foreman who sent one son to medical school and Sam to California State University, Sacramento, for a degree in biology.

Rubio is on leave from medical school himself, trying to turn his café into a viable family business. "People who aren't from this area probably think the way I did in college. They think the farmers are greedy and won't give up water because they don't want to lose an easy million (dollars)," Rubio said.

"Now that I'm back here, and seeing what is going on, I've asked myself, 'What was I thinking?' " He's stuck in the middle, he said. He's had heartfelt talks with people in town about the vital need for protecting water and species, whether they're whales or tiny fish like the endangered Delta smelt. But he also believes he was naive not to appreciate the pain that job loss inflicts.

"Farmers are saying, 'Just give us the water and we'll give people jobs.' Environmentalists are saying, 'No, we have to stop this and save the fish,' " Rubio said. "Who is going to find the common ground?".
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 120
green energy
Posted: 6/26/2009 11:44:30 PM

The Communists will make sure they earn the coin at the expense of the present and future health of their workers and residents of factory areas. So what's this blather about the big bad Capitalist Pigs?


The only differece between a Communist and a Capitalist is who owns the factory. In neither case do they want to be accountable to an informed citizenry at large.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 121
green energy
Posted: 7/1/2009 1:59:41 PM
There's a lot of truth to your answer Ace. I still prefer capitalism even if the difference is small. The power (or potential power) is more in our hands.

I'm happy to see the ignorant and irresponsible get financially raped. But it's not happening here with the crony bailouts of institutions that are "too big to fail". There's a big irony that I can only hope people will see. That is that to let the free market correct itself would come closer to punishing the irresponsible than what's allowed by the current administration and congress.

Hope and change lies with average Joe. Glen Beck is the only person in the mainstream that I hear repeating this.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 122
green energy
Posted: 7/1/2009 11:16:39 PM
The power (or potential power) is more in our hands.


If you're a major stockholder, that's true. If not, what access or leverage do you have?

BTW, I do agree with you about the bail-outs, but we're all going to need a bail-out if we don't start converting to a sustainable infrastructure so that we can better manage our fuel.

I just saw "Who Killed the Electric Car" the other night. Funny, but if GM had not crushed all the EV1s and stopped development, they'd be well positioned to weather this downturn and the increased fuel prices that will come when the economy bounces back. I don't think there's any doubt that GM is defunct. But a decline that is slowed enough by federal intervention will at least prevent the Detroit area from exploding in riots. I suspect that's the thinking behind the bail-outs. You've got to give an alky some beer if he's going into delerium tremens, otherwise he'll die a messy death.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 123
view profile
History
green energy
Posted: 7/2/2009 12:04:29 AM
No one seems to mention the Wagner Act of the 1930's, and the ruinous effect it had on American carmakers' ability to control labor costs. One reason they encouraged demand for larger cars and trucks through advertising is that they made more profit per vehicle. If they'd made mostly economy cars, the more-or-less fixed labor costs would have cut their profits to nothing.

And the CAFE standards imposed enormous costs on the carmakers. Congress authorized them to make this country more immune to foreign restrictions of the oil supply, and they have not done that at all. The U.S. imports more of its oil today--by far--than it did in 1974. And about a fourth of that is still used for transportation. Lighting, heating/cooling, and electric motors each account for about a fourth of the total oil the U.S. consumes.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 124
green energy
Posted: 7/2/2009 1:22:58 PM
Well, labor costs for GM cars amount to a whopping 10%, even with collective bargaining. When the first round of mandatory fuel efficiency regs were being proposed, the Japanese manufacturers got to work on meeting them. They didn't spend tremendous amounts of political capital on trying to beat them back because they knew that if they were going to break into the American car market they'd have to play by the rules. Remember the Honda CVCC engine?

The market, led by big players who resist every innovation so as to maximize the profit they can extract from their existing factory operations, has not responded by demanding greater efficiency through their purchasing behavior. This is because without adequate information about the consequences to themselves, their children, and their grandchildren, consumers have not seen the need.

Fuel consumption is a three-way transaction. There is the buyer, the seller, and the person who will have to endure the opportunity cost after the fuel has been burned. That person's interest is not represented in the market model, and won't be until the supply is so short that the current consumer and the aced-out future consumer become one and the same person.

Once car makers wake up and recognize that their business is motorized vehicles, not IC engines, we just might get somewhere. They became wedded to a particular technology, rather than keeping an eye on the true demand, which is for convenient, safe, enjoyable, individualized transportation. That is the value to consumers that a car provides.

As oil gets more dear, a 300-mile range for a 5-adult passenger car that is used for daily commuting will no longer be viable. Those gas hogs will be fine to rent for the occasional road trip, but for day-to-day use, a two-seater with a 60-mile range and emissions concentrated at the electrical generation facility (where they can be scrubbed) will do fine. My next vehicle purchase will be either all electric or hybrid. I could go all electric since I live close to work and the car I have now is a small pick-up that meets my needs for hauling tools, debris, and big-box items. Most days I could park the pick-up, or even rent it out.

BTW, it turns out that hybrid technology was initially developed here in the US. And, just as with Deming's production methods, it was dismissed by our vaunted automakers and taken up by the Japanese. There is still a waiting list to get a Prius.

The Big 3 can continue to try to shift the blame to the workers and the CAFE standards all they want to. However, it is a bad workman who blames his tools. My only regret about GM is that those workers still aren't prepared to design and build cars that will actually compete in the new economic climate of ever-increasing liquid-fuel prices.

GM is dead by its own hand, and will not recover as long as it retains its current mindset.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 125
green energy
Posted: 8/19/2009 11:14:20 AM
OUR LAND - COLLATERAL FOR THE NATIONAL DEBT
Derry Brownfield
August 17, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
I consider Wayne Hage one of the most intelligent men I ever met. On our very first visit he was explaining the World Bank, the International Monetary fund and how the world bankers planned on collateralizing the world debt with land. Not just the U.S. national debt, but the “WORLD” debt. A listener sent me a copy of a report of the FOURTH WORLD WILDERNESS CONGRESS, which was held in Denver in 1987. Over 1500 people from sixty countries were told that wilderness lands were to protect the reindeer, the spotted owl and other endangered species. Ninety percent of the group consisted of conservationists, ecologists, government and United Nations bureaucrats. The other ten percent were world banking heavyweights, such as David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan Bank, London banker Edmund de Rothschild and the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, James Baker, who gave the keynote address. George W. Hunt, an investment councilor, served as official host and sat in on all the meetings. It was George Hunt that wrote the report from which I have gleaned much of my information.
During the first three days, the group was told that the WILDERNESS CONGRESS was about beating the ozone deterioration and bringing the rain forests back. The following days were closed to the public. With only the bankers in attendance the topics discussed centered around the creation of a “WORLD CONSERVATION BANK” with collateral being derived from receipt of wilderness properties throughout the world. This bank would have central bank powers similar to the Federal Reserve. It would create currency and loans and engage in international discounting, counter-trade, barter and swap actions. Rothschild personally conducted the monetary matters and the creation of this WORLD CONSERVATION BANK. This bank would refinance by swapping debt for assets. A country with a huge national debt would receive money to pay off the debt by swapping the debt for wilderness lands. The plan was to swap one trillion dollars of Third World Debt into this new bank. In the long term, when the countries won’t be able to pay off the loans, governments from around the world will give title to their wilderness lands to the bankers.

George Hunt wrote: “Title to the lands will go to the World Wilderness Land Inventory Trust. This Trust will float into the World Conservation Bank by the unanimous decree of the world’s people, saying, God bless you for saving our reindeer. Those people at the congress were ignorant. They don’t suspect anything. They’re very naïve. Not stupid, ignorant. I’m talking about the 90% that were not the world banking heavyweights.”

Hunt goes on to say that World Bank loans, as they stand now, are not collateralized. They’re saying, we want collateral, so when we loan-swap this debt, we’re going to own the Amazon if you default. They’re going to make their bad loans good by collateralizing them after the fact with all of this land and somebody is going to end up with title to twelve and half billion acres. They have multi-trillions of dollars upon which they can create currencies and loans and they’re going to begin to barter and counter-trade and loan-swap against the United States. The World Conservation Bank is a scheme to monetize land. This will function as a world central bank and out of that bank there will grow a one-world fiat currency.

Hunt goes on to say that World Bank loans, as they stand now, are not collateralized. They’re saying, we want collateral, so when we loan-swap this debt, we’re going to own the Amazon if you default. They’re going to make their bad loans good by collateralizing them after the fact with all of this land and somebody is going to end up with title to twelve and half billion acres. They have multi-trillions of dollars upon which they can create currencies and loans and they’re going to begin to barter and counter-trade and loan-swap against the United States. The World Conservation Bank is a scheme to monetize land. This will function as a world central bank and out of that bank there will grow a one-world fiat currency.

When James Baker made his keynote speech in 1987, he stated that, “No longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks.” Baker’s definition of federal lands includes Heritage sites, of which there are about 20 in the United States. I say “about” 20, because they are being added on a regular basis. As I write this article Congress is about to vote on a proposed Rim of the Valley National Park that would include over 500,000 acres of National Forest land and 170,000 parcels of private property including many farms and ranches. At the same time there is a bill before Congress called the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act that would increase the acreage of designated wilderness by 50% in the lower 48 states. *** While our Heritage sites take in quite a large amount of territory, such as Yellowstone National Park and Mesa Verde, the Grand Canyon and the Everglades, other countries have much greater areas. Brazil for example has the Amazon Conservation Complex and Canada has the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks. As I write this story the list includes 851 properties in 141 countries, comprising over one third of the earth’s land mass. Will all this land collateralize the world’s debt? Probably not, so along comes NAIS (the National Animal Identification System).

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, “The first step in implementing a national animal identification system (NAIS) is identifying and registering premises that are associated with the animal agriculture industry. In terms of the NAIS, a premise is any geographically unique location in which agricultural animals are raised, held, or boarded. Under this definition, farms, ranches, feed-yards, auction barns and livestock exhibitions and fair sites are all examples of premises.” That may be the definition some government bureaucrat will give you, but the word “premises” under the “international Criminal Court Act 2002- Sect 4, states: The word “premises” includes a place and a “conveyance.” Why check with the International Criminal Court Act? Because on June 8, 2007 under Secy. of Ag. Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, is quoted as saying, “We have to live by the same international rules we’re expecting other people to do.”

Throughout the entire Draft National Animal Identification System Users Guide, land is referred to as a premises and not property. A “Premises” has no protection under the Constitution of the United States, while property always has the exclusive rights of the owner tied to it. Property rights are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

The word “Premise” is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the word tenement in law is: Property, such as land, held by one person “leasing” it to another. Webster’s New World Dictionary 1960 College Edition defines “Premises” as the part of a deed or “lease” that states its reason, the parties involved and the property in “conveyance.” Webster then defines “conveyance” as the transfer of ownership of real property from one person to another. It is quite obvious that the bureaucrats in Washington had a very good reason to use the term “premises” and never mention “PROPERTY.”

Let’s take another look at the wilderness areas and the World Bank’s plans to collateralize its loans. While the wilderness areas cover about one third of the earth’s surface, they are wilderness areas for a good reason – they were useless or difficult to homestead, farm or use in a constructive manner. Worldwide the best and more valuable land is occupied by farmers, ranchers and people with the ambition to produce. Wouldn’t the World Bankers rather have some productive property than mountains, deserts and swamps?

I am convinced that the word “premise” will put an encumbrance on your deed. The bankers say they want to monetize land. It’s your land and my land they want to monetize.

The bankers are in the process of accumulating the wealth of the world. Very few privately owned assets can be termed “real wealth.” According to scripture, God made Abraham very wealthy, giving him LAND, CATTLE, silver and gold. (Genesis 24:35) Four thousand years later, wealth continues to be LAND, CATTLE, silver and gold. I don’t know where the world deposits of gold are stored, but I’m sure the bankers have them in their control. That only leaves LAND and CATTLE which I believe could be next on the list. Genesis 47 describers how Joseph had storehouses full of grain to feed the people but he didn’t have a welfare program. During the first year of the famine, Joseph took “ALL THE MONEY” the people had for only one year’s supply of grain. The second year he took all their cattle for another year’s supply of grain. The next year they said, “We have nothing left but our bodies and our land. Buy us and our land in exchange for food and we and our land will be servants to Pharaoh.” Genesis 47:21 states, “And as for the people, he removed them to the cities and made slaves of them.”

James Madison made a statement concerning how our people could lose our freedom by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power. Is it possible that those in power today are gradually and silently in the process of removing the people to the cities to make slaves of them? Federalizing our land and our cattle would certainly be a step in that direction.
© 2007 Derry Brownfield - All Rights Reserved
For further research into this please visit the following sites:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread45831/pg1
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBS_enUS322US322&q=National+Parks+uses+for+collateral
Show ALL Forums  > California  > green energy