Another way to transition to our better future

We as individuals generally vote in our own self interest.  That is why the rhetoric coming from both campaigns is mostly about "the economy and jobs".

In an ideal world, the economy is vibrant and everyone who wants and/or needs to work has a good job.  But in that ideal world, that vibrant economy does not consume resources in an unsustainable way, does not pollute or degrade our planet, and those jobs provide a positive contribution to our collective economic culture.

In the real world, the candidates must contend with constituents that have and need jobs that do pollute and degrade our planet.  And they need votes.  So, we see them pandering to those interests though we know that they know that those interests are not in the best interest of our nation or planet. 

The example that we have seen recently is the pandering to the "coal states."   Most areas of coal production have few jobs available that are not in the coal industry.  Scaling back on coal would devastate the economy in these areas.  So the candidates give speeches and air ads that support those jobs. 

As in my last blog post, I see this as an opportunity to transition these industries into sustainable energy.  By providing a commitment to a continued transition away from coal production and into sustainable energy production in these areas, coal jobs could be protected in the short term, and workers could be retrained for the jobs of our energy future.

Transition some military spending to new energy technologies

There is plenty of discussion on the budget and the deficit and the debt.  There are competing viewpoints on what to do about it.  The "jobs" issue adds a very powerful influence on the debate.  The deficit hawks want to cut spending, but do not want to add revenue to the mix, having an aversion to raising taxes, especially on the wealthy they see as the job creators.

The inconsistency in this argument comes when there is a discussion of the Defense budget.  The deficit hawks are also defense hawks.  They talk about our need to provide for national security.  The military has programs that they would like to discontinue but Congress keeps them going.  Why?  Because it is a jobs thing.  They are really most concerned about how cuts will affect the Military Industrial Complex, specifically those military contractors in their districts.  The military has conveniently spread the wealth of their contracts nationwide so each congressperson has their own district's jobs to protect.

So, my idea is to create a system that transitions a percentage of military contracts to civilian purposes that aid in non-military national security advancement by way of energy independence, keeping these coddled contractors employing their people while moving us forward as a country.

One example of this would be to convert to progressive energy production and efficiency projects.  Solar Photo Voltaic and LED lighting production are examples.  If manufacturers could quickly retrofit factories during World War II we can do it now. 

We spend so much more than the rest of the world on the military, we can afford to cut back on that spending and re-purpose it for our future and keep people employed at the same time.

Tom Freidman "gets it right" on natural gas

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/friedman-get-it-right-on-gas.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Teach kids science by inspiring change in common realities

Some things just become so much a part of our lives that we fail to envision anything that is different.  Changing these things is difficult if no one is thinking about alternatives.  Part of our push to interest students in science should include highlighting things that have become extremely widespread yet are unsustainable and how science must provide an alternative.

The most obvious example of this is fossil fuel use.  While there is a multitude of ways we use fossil fuels, and there are many alternatives being developed for many uses, there is one that I hear little about.  That is asphalt.  For over a hundred years, paving of road surfaces with asphalt (actually a mix of asphalt and "aggregate") has become not only common, but ubiquitous.  The fact that asphalt is the most recycled product in the world is counter to, but critical to, the point that I would like to make.  It is the repaving of roads and recycling of asphalt that uses a lot of fossil fuel.  The process of recycling requires grinding the old failed road surface, loading and hauling the ground asphalt to the processing plant where it must be heated to a high temperature to be recycled, loaded and hauled to its new location, where it must be loaded into a paving machine to be laid, followed by rolling.  Road bed preparation and other incidentals add to the energy consumption in the repaving process.

So, what is my point?  Well, like most things, this situation is perpetuated by inertia.  It is what it is, and if we think of it at all, we think that this is how it always will be.  But why?  Because no one has thought of a realistic, scalable alternative.  Yet.  Do you think we will be repaving our roads in the same way, more or less, in two hundred years?  Will we have repaved the same roads the same way on a cycle of every 10-20 years (or whatever), time and time again?  I hope not.  So we should be looking for the next alternative now and until it it developed.

Our children should be inspired to see that science has the potential to change our world.  Questioning common realities, and searching for better alternatives should be part of our educational goals.  Inspiration from changes that have already been made should bolster that challenge.  Asphalt is just one example of a common reality that could be changed.  There is no limit to what other seemingly permanent fixtures of our culture that could be changed for the better.

The future real estate crisis

We have been in a "Real Estate Crisis" for a few years now.  We have all grown weary of the stories in the news relating to the various aspects of this crisis.  Stories of those who were pushed into risky mortgages they could not afford.  Stories of those who are "underwater" on their mortgages.   Stories of those who have lost their homes to foreclosure.  And stories of neighborhoods where there are lots of empty houses bringing the values of everyone else's houses down.

These are all gloomy realities.  And there are more gloomy realities.  The rise in the average square footage of American homes during decades where the average family size was falling and real middle class wages were stagnant at best, along with the rising bubble of real estate values, and the extraction of that value to fund an unrealistic rise in personal and family lifestyle set up the Real Estate Crisis.  The gloomy reality is that the higher you go the farther you have to fall.  And that fall, as we have seen by the bursting of the real estate bubble, has put us so low that recovery has been nearly non-existent.

There has been a push by some to forgive some of the debt by changing the terms of the mortgages, revaluating the properties, or otherwise making it possible for those who are at risk of losing their homes to keep them.  There are many reasons that this would be a good thing for not only the home owners, but for the overall economy.  That said, I can not help but see the bigger picture and that picture has a problem that will be with us for a longer time than the current crisis.

Owning your own home has been seen as part of the American Dream.  Home ownership has its responsibilities.  Paying the mortgage is only one of them.  Paying taxes and insurance are also a necessity.  But the problem I see, that does not get talked about in the stories of the Real Estate Crisis, is that of home maintenance.

Maintaining a house and property costs money.  As anyone who has owned a home knows, there always seems to be something that needs to be maintained, fixed, or replaced.  This could be something like a water heater, furnace, flooring, roof, plumbing, paint, you name it.  Some of these things must be done when they need to be done.  If your water heater breaks down, you will fix or replace it as needed.  But some other things, and these are the things that I believe will build into the next crisis, are less urgent and thus can and will be delayed beyond prudence, and will not only end up costing more in the long run (think failure to replace a roof that badly needs replacing and having damaging leaks) but will create a system-wide real estate quality degradation that given our difficult financial times will become a new, possibly worse, Real Estate Crisis.

Keeping the dream of solar alive

I have a dream of going "solar".  And in this case I am referring to photovoltaic electricity producing cells.  There are a lot of obstacles stopping this from happening.  Cost and available sunlight are the two greatest challenges.  We have a limited income, and we live in the woods, in the northern tier of the United States.   While tropical areas have the best solar potential, Germany has proven that significant solar capability lies in northern latitudes.  This, however, assumes good exposure.  We are nestled in the New Hampshire forest.  Oaks and pines crown over our little house and barn to a height of 80 feet and more, with an understory of birch, maple, and beech.  We love being in the woods but are considering removing over a dozen large trees which represents a significant cost in of itself.  As a side benefit, our garden could definitely use the extra sunshine.

Having wanted to do this for years, I have tried to keep some awareness of what is happening in the industry and of any available incentives that could make it easier to achieve.  This in order to keep from missing any window of opportunity that may open, or slam shut.  The news seems to have been that costs continue to fall as the technology improves.  The newer CIGS (copper indium gallium diselenide [Cu(In_xGa_1-x)Se₂] )  cells have a lot of promise, but the recently ramped up production of silicon for the older standard panels favored by Chinese manufacturers have brought costs so low that CIGS technology is having a hard time competing. 

The older technology being produced in China has had the benefit of lowering costs to the extent that the price point has allowed for a large increase in solar deployment, though as a percentage of electricity production solar remains quite small.

In my case, the increased efficiency of the more expensive CIGS technology would be beneficial in my less than optimal solar exposure.  The solar industry is in a difficult position to assess going forward.  It will continue to grow, but what the dominant technology will be and which players will succeed remains unknown. 

As I continue to work toward the time I can afford to take the leap, I keep the dream of solar alive for myself and millions of others.  The world depends on it.

Capitalism wins!

Yes, capitalism wins.  And with capitalism it is "winner takes all".

That is the problem.  With unregulated capitalism the winners take all and the losers lose.  The success of capitalism and the propensity of deregulation have resulted in our current condition of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

The biggest problem we have with the "entitlement state" is the feeling of entitlement that the wealthy have toward their wealth, and that they feel entitled to have that wealth grow at unrealistic levels regardless of the drain it has on the overall economy.

The wealthy scorn any suggestion that tax policy include the "redistribution of wealth" to return some of that money back into the system to the benefit of the middle and lower classes.  The reality is that they welcome their own participation in the "redistribution of wealth" in their own direction by using the power of their wealth to concentrate that wealth toward themselves in the highest wealth class.

I believe that not only do we need to regulate capitalism to balance the power of corporations and the top tier of the wealthy, but we need to include a strongly progressive tax structure that taxes extreme income at the historical high rates that have been successful in the past.  But, while doing so, we must also tax the middle class in a way that helps dig us out of the fiscal pit we have collectively dug ourselves.  This will slow the "recovery" of our economy, but that slow recovery will be one that adapts to lower spending by both government and families, which will be a more stable and sustainable economy.  And that is the bitter pill we really need to take.  The delusion of being able to return to policies that got us here in the first place must be exposed for the folly that it is. 

The American Dream has become just a pipe dream

The American Dream is a residual fantasy that we hold on to though it is now unobtainable by the majority of Americans.

The American Dream is defined in a number of ways.  Generally it involves the potential for upward mobility, prosperity, and the concept that each generation will live better than the generation before them.

There has been a silent assault on the American Dream over recent decades.  Capitalism combined with inadequate, ill advised, or non-existent regulation and greed have focused economic power in the hands of the few.  Excessive consumption, by individuals, families, and governments have brought expectations of prosperity and wealth to unsustainable levels, at the cost of burdensome debt.

When an individual or a family overspends and finds itself in excessive debt, it must change its ways.  It must earn more if it can, spend less, and pay down its debts.  This is made more difficult by the extra burden of the interest accruing on that debt, making the amount it will have to pay back grow over time.  Paying down this debt results in a period of decreasing prosperity, and a lower standard of living.   That period can be quite long if the debt load is large. 

Quite similarly, governments can find themselves in excessive debt, and must change their ways.  They must bring in more money if they can, spend less, and pay down its debts.  Interest payments provide a onerous burden to governments as well.

When, in the collective, a society lives beyond its means, and both the citizenry and their government have accrued large amounts of debt, prosperity declines and the "American Dream" is destined to fail.  As one generation has lived beyond its means, it has raised the bar of perceived prosperity to an unrealistic height.  The next generation not only finds that bar too high to attain for themselves, but is also saddled with the burdens of the previous generation.

This reality means that for now the American Dream has become just a pipe dream.  Any attempts to deny this truth and make policy to perpetuate the delusion will only make it worse and last longer.

You can use free geothermal air conditioning with your current central AC, here's how to do it.

Much of the country is in a heat wave. It's been in the 90s and triple digits here the last couple of days.  Yesterday, Lisa turned on the central AC in anticipation of another hot one.  We limit our AC use, this was the first time this year to break down and start it up.  There were blackouts and reports of extreme stress on the power grid.  Lots of people out there using a lot of AC energy.

Well, here's the thing.  Though I didn't tell her, when she turned on the AC, she did so at the thermostat and did not include the outdoor breaker at the compressor.  Without it, no AC.  So, I opened the basement cold air return register and let the duct fan, activated by Lisa's thermostat action, blow.  The basement, cooled by shallow passive geothermal action (in New Hampshire, the earth below 5-6 feet is at 52-53˚F all year) remains cool.  The basement air, drawn into the duct system, circulated through the house and kept the place cooler throughout the day during the highest electricity demand. 

By 8:00pm as the day had caught up with the basement's ability to cool the house (and Lisa was feeling it), I kicked in the real AC,  dropped the house temp down 4 or 5 degrees, dropped the humidity, and we were good for the night.  This morning, I switched back to just the fan (on circulation mode which doesn't run the whole time) and we are saving energy and helping out the power grid again today.

If you have central AC, give it a try.  Any amount of time not running your AC compressor saves energy and money.

Keep your house small

Keep your house small.  If your are in the market to buy a house, buy a small house.  If you own a house, resist adding on to it.

One is no longer able to claim, as has been claimed countless times to countless young adults as they establish themselves and consider purchasing their first house, that housing prices always go up.  I was told the same during the housing bubble of the late 1980s.  Perhaps you could call it the housing rush of the late 1980s.  I remember an open house where the house sold for well over the asking price within two hours of it being on the market.  We arrived at the open house and the house was already sold.  The market was crazy.  We had to buy quick or get priced out of the market.  We were told to buy as much house as we could because the more house you bought, the more of an investment base you had to reap the bounteous rewards of the ever rising housing market. 

We ended up buying a small house.  At around 1000 square feet, it served our needs.  Sure, we could have used more space. But, realistically all we really needed was more storage space. There is not much of an attic, no garage, and a small compromised basement (water infiltration during the spring snow melt), but we got by.  A few years later we had a son.  This put more pressure on the size of our house.  We were advised to add on to our house to accommodate our rising spatial needs.  A number of our friends added on to their houses as their children grew.  We too, felt the temptation as our son grew and our house increasingly seemed to lack some of the benefits of a larger house.

But larger houses consume more.  They consume more energy and materials in the construction of the house itself or of an addition.  And they consume more energy and materials year after year in heating/cooling, maintenance, and upkeep.  If you are a homeowner, the house you own is your house.  You are responsible for how that house functions as a part of our collective human impact on our planet. 

I am happy to say that we did not add on to our house.  While there were times, many times, that I felt that we should have added on in order to provide more space for our son and his friends, I now realize that it was not necessary.  We all survived.  Just as generations before us did, with larger average families and smaller average houses, we did fine.  And now that our son is away at college and, unless he boomerangs, is no longer living with us full time, we find our home quite comfortable without having added to it.

Full disclosure: We have supplemented our storage capacity.  Early on, we bought one of those small metal sheds.  This gave us a place for our lawn and garden tools, snowblower and the like.  The lifespan of that shed was shortened by a blizzard that collapsed the roof (which I repaired to get some more years out of it) but it served its purpose for 20 years or so.  Recently, I built a small barn to replace it.  This barn is large enough to not only replace the small shed but to also provide additional storage that allows for more efficient use of our basement and attic.  The key thing about the barn is that it is unattached to the house, and has no provision for heat.  If I had added on to the house, the temptation would have been to make the additional storage space unnecessarily heated space. 

Another argument for small houses is that they require proportionally less maintenance.  That means less time and money is required to maintain them.  All home owners need to budget for the maintenance of their property.  Whether it is a new roof, a coat of paint, adding insulation, or whatever, as the size of a house increases, so do the costs of upkeep.  This brings to mind another topic that I think about and that I will pursue in a separate post.

So please, think long and hard about the size of your house when considering a purchase or adding to your existing home.  Keep your house small.

Chris Hayes responds to my point regarding people's unrealistic expectations

I shot off a quick email to an NHPR call in show with guest Chris Hayes.  I didn't get to it until late but it made it as the last item discussed.  I especially liked how Chris said that David Brooks had just written a NYTimes article on the same subject the same day.

Scroll to around 93% if you want to just hear his response to my email:

http://cpa.ds.npr.org/nhpr/audio/2012/06/061212_090636.mp3

Scott Walker's win analyzed

The conventional wisdom has it that the win by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in the recall election was a referendum on support of unions, public unions in particular.  This is based on the radical restrictions imposed early in his tenure and the drama that ensued with public demonstrations, and the efforts of democrats to prevent the governor and state Republicans from eviscerating union bargaining rights.

I respectfully disagree.  I thought during the demonstrations that the public unions got the message all wrong.  They defended union bargaining rights.  That makes some sense.  But what they didn't do is to make any effort to focus the message on anything but bargaining rights and themselves.

The entire working class would love to have the benefits that the public workers enjoy.  Most do not.  And that is the problem. And that is the missing message. 

Our entire national system of retirement and pensions, inclusive of all levels of retirement security from corporate pensions to Social Security and is a system of those who have a lot to those that have very little.  With the economy as sluggish as it is, voters who have little to no retirement savings look to the public unions and their pensions and benefits, compare it to their own situation and wonder why it is that they should support public employees relatively cushy benefits and retirement with their tax dollars while they struggle and have no such security.

If unions argued that their benefits and pensions are something that they and everyone else should have access to, and that they would be working to develop a universal plan that would ensure the middle class had an equal chance at these benefits, they would have garnered more support.  But to merely say that they should have these benefits and the tax payers should foot the bill does not provide and argument that a struggling middle class voter is likely to rally behind.

So it was touted to be about bargaining rights and that was fine with Republicans because they are against unions and their bargaining rights.  But if the unions thought that they could couch their arguments to the Democrats and more importantly the Independents in terms of bargaining rights and ignore the union's benefits that non-public workers do not have, they were wrong.

Why did the bear cross the road?

This bear is crossing the road in front of our house:

Update on first blog entry

Going back to my first blog entry, where I wrote of the new phenomena of our sump pump running in the fall for the first time and not running during the spring snow melt for the first time, I have an update.

After the exceptionally dry winter and early spring, we have had quite a bit of rain lately.  And, you guessed it, our sump pump has been running for the last few days.  Again, this is a first.

So, the "global weirding" of the weather as an indicator of climate change continues.

Reboot the economy with a plan that looks forward to a time when things will be much different.

Well,the big news is that the stock market is way down again.  Surprise surprise.

At this point, I would like to revisit my thoughts on an economy based on growth.

Much of the blame for the recent drop in the market seems to be focused on the poor jobs reports and the continued difficulties in the Euro Zone.  While that is probably a righteous analysis, the blame for the economy being in the state it is needs to be spread more widely and analyzed in more depth.

People's confidence in the financial system and the economy has always been seen as an indicator of the direction of the economy.  Confident consumers equals consuming consumers.  Increased consumption equals a growing economy.

Well, the finance elite would have you believe that this bad news in the jobs report is the most important factor in the wavering confidence of the average consumer.  The more they tell you that, the more likely it is that you will believe them.  Somehow, they are hoping that the recent story about a JP Morgan Chase fiasco, which had them losing 2-3 billion dollars or more on the same type of complex derivatives that sent us into the morass we have been in since 2008, is seen as having nothing to do with it.  Hmm.  The lack of humility of Wall Street's major players, and their effects on the economy in the past and the potential effects that they may have on the economy in the future are much more troubling to me.

So we need consumption to get the economy growing faster in order to create more jobs.  People increase consumption when they feel that they have disposable income and are confident that it will stay that way.  Instabilities in the financial markets decrease confidence in the future.  This decreases consumption and the economy slows, decreasing disposable income, decreasing consumption...  Is it unreasonable to consider excessive consumption an unstable base on which to perch our economy?

I believe we need to analyze our economy based on comparing the present situation in all of its complexity to what we can try to predict about the future economy when important changes will have taken place in the makeup of humanity.

There will be a time when the human population level is effectively stable if not shrinking.  The undeniable fact that our planet is limited in size frames the positivity with which I tell you this.  When it will occur depends on the rate at which we approach that limitation, and the extent to which we are able to adapt and provide for the growing populace.

Some, myself included, believe that we are either approaching or have already exceeded the acceptable carrying capacity of our planet.  We have huge problems created by the huge growth in human population.  Our resource depletion and the costs and effects of obtaining them, using them, and disposing of the waste is putting a huge strain on many aspects of the ecosystem.

Putting these realities in the context of the economy over time, should steer our thoughts on how to deal with the economic planning and regulation. The future will be one of population stability. We need to phase our economy over time to accommodate that future.   The sooner we can do that the better, but it can only happen smoothly if the changes are well thought and enacted in a timely and predictable manner.  One must always keep in mind that change typically happens slowly and the immensity of the changes we need to our systems requires an understanding of that need and a commencement of action as soon as possible.

The paradigm of growth as the ideal model for the global economy must be replaced, in a controlled manner over time, with one where the goals are decreasing the amplitude of the bubble/recession cycle and increasing economic stability at very low growth rates.

Great Blue Heron

I took this photo on my way to work:

Time to Compost

Well, it's that time of year when we get out and work on our lawns and gardens.  I am always amazed by those who comment on, and even sometimes seem to covet, our compost, yet do not create their own. 

Composting is easy.  You do not have to be very elaborate with your set up, nor very adherent to the "rules" of composting.  Your results will vary, but really only the speed of the decomposition will vary.  Eventually all of the organic matter will "compost".

As you may know, even apartment dwellers can compost in a container.  This composting relies on worms and requires a bit more discipline regarding the rules, but is effective.

The two big benefits of composting are the fertile "black gold" you get to spread on your garden or use in your planting pots, and the environmental savings generated by the decrease in your solid waste disposal.

There are plenty of websites on composting you can explore.  Here's one to start with:

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/composting/index.htm

Check out the options, and start composting.

Wash your hands in cold water

In this blog I will occasionally note a small thing that you can do to make a change in your life that will, when combined with millions of others doing the same thing, make a significant difference in how humanity impacts the world.

The small thing I would like to suggest here is: wash your hands in cold water. I know it is counter to what most people would consider proper, but it is a good, easy to take, step on the path of decreasing your personal footprint. Hot water cools in the pipes between the hot water heater and the faucet. Even with well insulated pipes, the water cools significantly in a short period of time when just sitting in the pipes. In order to wash your hands in hot water, you turn on the hot water and wait, as the water flows, for the hot water to arrive. During that time, there is a waste of both water and the energy expended to heat some or that water in the first place that was then lost as the previous session's water sat in the pipes. Hand washing does not take a large amount of water (you should have the water flowing just enough to wet and rinse your hands) so the water and energy wasted waiting for the hot water is a substantial percentage of total used for the whole procedure. Now if you multiply this by the number of times a day you wash your hands, it adds up. Now multiply that by our entire population and you really have a significant impact on water and energy consumption.

I started washing my hands in cold water a while ago. At first it was a bit unpleasant, since I was accustomed to hot water washing, but now it seems normal. By using cold water, I begin washing immediately, saving water, and use no energy heating the water, saving all of that energy. There are of course conditions that would benefit from a hot water wash, and at those times do it and with no regrets. But for those times when you simply need to wash your hands, a cold water wash with non-anti-bacterial soap is more than sufficient for routine hand hygiene.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_Hygiene#Water_temperature

Help save the planet. Wash your hands in cold water.

Red Eyed Vireo

Continuing what seems to be a wildlife theme lately, this red eyed vireo dropped down from the canopy into the lower branches in our yard long enough for me to get some photos.

Louisiana Waterthrush

Got this photo of a Louisiana Waterthrush on a Hillsborough brook.

Kingfisher

An evening bike ride to a local swamp was highlighted by getting this decent shot of a belted kingfisher with his dinner.

Sophie's Choice or Buridan's Ass?

As our election cycle has us now with our two presumptive candidates, we are now faced with our two choices.

This is not a simple choice between Obama and Romney. It is a choice between the unknowable future of their; 2013-2017 administrations, innumerable policies and programs (and their ability to be enacted, and the results that would ensue if they were enacted or were unable to be enacted), choices of personnel for appointments (probably most importantly, any Supreme Court nominee), reaction to world events, ability to understand current crises in a future historical context and to act accordingly, and many other unknowables.

In this situation the choice remains for the undecided. Those who are for Romney (whether specifically so, or by default based on the primary results and their right wing allegiance) are for Romney. Those who are for Obama (whether because of, or in spite of, any perceived successes or failures of his first term) are for Obama. Thus the undecided are those who must make a choice.

So, there they are. The undecideds. Standing midway between the choices of Obama and Romney.

As in Buridan's Ass, they see the promise of positive programs and entitlements on one side and the promise of low taxes and smaller government on the other side. And, if they so choose, they try to see through the promises to what those future unknowables might be and how they might affect them.

As undecideds, these citizens have choices. The most basic choices are who to vote for, and whether to vote or not.

If they are unable to decide, and choose not to vote, they take the position of Buridan's Ass, stuck hungry and thirsty midway between water and hay, to the point of death of hunger and thirst unable to choose their salvation.

They may, alternatively, see themselves in the position of having to make a Sophie's Choice between what they see as two alternatives that provide them with mutually exclusive positive attributes.

Do they sacrifice programs and entitlements for low taxes and small government? Or do they sacrifice high taxes for spending on programs, entitlements, and infrastucture investment. Do they sacrifice regulation in the hopes of accelerating the economy at the risk of abuse or environmental degradation? Or do they sacrifice the economy's short term vitality for controls on corporations in the name of fairness and environmental protection.

These are some of the choices that we all must make. The real goal that we need to pursue from now until the election is that of influencing the undecideds to make an educated Sophie's choice rather than to be a Buridan's Ass.

Solar is great for heating swimming pools

As we progress into sustained warmer weather people will be out working on their property preparing for outdoor activities. While the percentage of those with swimming pools is small, the energy that they use has got to be quite high.  Many swimming pool owners heat their pools. By using a heater that consumes fuel or electricity, the energy consumption is huge.

Solar pool heating systems make a lot of sense. When used with a pool cover, the fuel cost savings for having a heated pool can be substantial. The investment to purchase and install a pool can be relatively large and the inclusion of a solar heating system can make that pool cheaper to maintain and more environmentally friendly at the same time.

So, if you know anyone who has a swimming pool, or plans to install one, please suggest that they look into the benefits of a solar pool heating system.

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=13230

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=13140

Why a Bit of Big Government is Good for Capitalism

There is a widespread condemnation of "big government" among Republicans and Libertarians. The argument is for "freedom" and the ability to work hard and to benefit from that work without the intrusion of the government by means of taxation and regulation.

Capitalism without this government "intrusion" is an effective way of redistributing wealth by concentrating it at the top of the economic hierarchy. This is deemed "fair" by the right based on the assumption of capitalism functioning as a righteous meritocracy. The right seems to always focus on wealth as something earned and deserved and something that should be protected from the government. That is until the subject of inheritance is discussed, wherein the discussion quickly pivots away from a meritocracy and back to freedom. That is because, of course, inheritance functions as a way of transferring wealth to the next generation devoid of any inconvenient merit requirements.

Big government with thoughtful regulation and progressive taxation can act as means to mitigate the upward redistribution of wealth. The problem we have today is that the Republicans did nothing to reign in President Bush's big government during his 8 years. This while concurrently gutting the taxes and regulation that could have helped to minimize the growing disparity of wealth and the budgetary imbalance that has been the anchor weighing down our economy ever since.

Vermont leads the nation

Senator Bernie Sanders recent blog post is a must read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/vermont-is-helping-to-lea_b_1435672.html

Time for a solar gold rush

Like the gold rushers before them, the natural gas frackers see the riches just waiting for them to harvest.

But now, we have very quickly overwhelmed demand, while continuing to frack heavily, and there is no where to put all the natural gas we are pumping.  Output is high, and with inadequate demand, there are two new issues to complicate the natural gas situation. 

Storage is one.  There isn't enough.  The industry is running out of storage capacity.  Soon, they will have to stop pumping so much.  All the while, they are trying to get as many wells in the ground and functional as possible while we are still deluding ourselves about the safety of fracking technology.  And in doing so, they are exacerbating the other new issue, price. 

Supply and demand has sent natural gas prices through the floor.  natural gas is selling for a fraction of what the cost was when this fracking rush started.  This has set up a situation where we are supporting our weak economy on the back of our environment in a new way.  Those who only care about money see only the cost benefit.  Those who care about the environment see it as just another deal with the devil. 

Natural gas does have benefits.  Electrical energy production with natural gas has the positive impacts of replacing the need for greater use of coal.  This decreases greenhouse gas pollution and slows the atrocity that is mountain top removal coal mining.  But, does the huge growth in natural gas usage, and the fracking that makes it cheap and easy to obtain merely camouflage the fossil fuel energy crisis that we choose to avoid facing?

It's time for a Solar gold rush.

An Unrealistic Dream

I have this unrealistic dream. It is a dream where, since we are all so self-centered, we can only choose for others and not for ourselves.  It is an example of how I like to think about problems in unusual ways.

We have a debt/deficit crisis. We all seem to want everything that will benefit us but do not want to pay for anything that we believe will not benefit us.

In this scenario, one of my thoughts is this: We set up a system where voters of one state would vote for the candidates from a random (drawn each election cycle by publicly broadcast lottery) other state. Each state would thus be voting for another state's representatives. That representative would then be reliant on votes from a state that would not be the beneficiary of wasteful spending for things like "earmarks" that would benefit that representative's state. This would help the effort to steer legislation toward the common good, rather than for the good of only one's own state. The candidates would remain the same, that is being from the state they will represent, and representing their state's constituents. But, those constituents would not have the expectation of a representative that would work to benefit their own state at the expense of the whole nation. In addition, any state that would deny another state's reasonable desires as a result of their votes for that state's representatives, would risk reprisal in subsequent elections. This would be a form of checks and balances.

This system would limit the power of long term elected officials (without term limits which I oppose), as they would not be re-elected based on the power of their seniority in congress, and their ability to bring home the bacon (pork) to the voters that support them.

Just an unrealistic dream, but perhaps food for thought.

The bilateral political divide

The bilateral political divide we are experiencing, is a result of two runaway trains of urgent thought. One side sees the world as a modern civilization careening towards the precipice of global cultural and financial collapse and that we need to do whatever is necessary to prevent going over the cliff in a way we have never seen before. The other side sees the world as a planet with people, that is careening towards a massive sink hole of planetary social and ecological systems collapse under the weight of a troubled humanity that needs to understand the threat and act quickly to prevent sinking into a worst case scenario reality.

The reality is that both views are based on fact. The divide is created because the two sides value what they are trying to save, and discount the importance of what the other side is trying to save.

The context of these goals in our current election cycle is important. It frames the arguments on both sides. The Republicans tend to see threats to cultural and financial stability. They seek to regulate culture in their own image, and to deregulate finance for profit and prosperity in order to maintain our prominence in the world. The Democrats tend to see threats to society and ecological stability. They seek to maximize social equity and regulate ecological stewardship to ensure we leave a sustainable planet to future generations.

Raccoon

I saw a raccoon on my mountain bike ride yesterday.

Economic growth is unsustainable

Economic growth is unsustainable. Our economy, as it is today, is based on growth. If the economy isn't growing, the economy is bad, and a lot of bad things happen. That is because of the premises that our economy is based on.

I am not an economist. But I do think about the economy, and I wonder if economists think at all about the economy the way I do. I like to think about the big picture. That means considering as many aspects of an issue over the longest term that is practical. When considering the economy, and its basis on growth. I think of what that growth is based on. And I think that growth is based on people. Consumers.

Consumers in the aggregate contribute to growth in two ways. The first way is by consuming more, and the second way is by creating more consumers. Neither of these two contributors of growth is sustainable.

We have already increased our consumption to the point that as Americans we consume substantially more per capita than the rest of the world. Not only has this resulted in an unprecedented depletion of our natural resources, increased pollution and a host of other problems, but we are exporting our consumer culture to the rest of the world, skyrocketing the levels of global consumerism.

And as far as creating more consumers, beyond the exportation of our consumer culture, more consumers are created by creating more people. Population growth creates more consumers.

So, I look at the long term, or even medium term, and see that this is unsustainable. Even looking far enough into the future where globalization has pulled the whole world's population into the consuming economy, the point comes where there are no more undeveloped countries to add to the economy. In that future everyone lives in a country that has a high level of consumerism. Further growth on that front is essentially gone. The only other way for the economy to grow is to add more people. More people, more consumption. How ever many people you think this finite planet can sustain, that number is not infinite. Regardless of where you think that limit is, there is a limit.

So, given that there is a limit to the expansion of markets, and a limit on the expansion of the earth's population, it seems to me that there is a limit on the capacity of economic prosperity to be based on growth. That being said, I believe we need to look at that future and begin the transition to a sustainable economy that is decidedly not based on growth. We need to visualize that future and start to implement the policies that make it possible and make it work.

Long Live the Radical Left

I used to have an ongoing debate with my brother. This debate lasted years and only ended with his death 5 years ago. With the rise of radical right wing activism, I think that were my brother alive today, my side of this debate would hold more sway.

This debate was on the question of the value of the radical left in modern society. I argued that though I believed that the most extreme radical left was excessive and wrong in much of what they think and do, that we should value their contribution to the big picture reality of where our society is today. And what is that contribution that I value so much? Balance. The balance that the radical left provides for the radical right.

The radical right has been active in moving the “center” to the right since the Reagan revolution. With the extremism of the radical right and their success at spreading their far right propaganda through the likes of right wing talk radio and and FOX News, the absence of an extreme left wing viewpoint moves the center to the right. So without the radical left, people, especially those who do not do a lot of personal analysis based on multiple sources of information, will see the center further to the right.

While I do not agree with the most radical left, without them my left-of-center viewpoints would be perceived as being far left wing. Using a bell curve as a visualization tool, and knowing how powerful the radical right is, without the radical left, a reasonable left wing is seen as being too far from the peak of the curve.

  

My brother argued that reason should be enough to sway opinion. I dream of such a utopia, but believe in reality.  I believe a sizable percentage of people locate themselves on the curve relative to the location of the “center” because they prefer not to see themselves as being too far from that center.

So, long live the radical left.

“Freedom versus Government”.

A lot of the political arguments these days seem to pit freedom against government. While we can all agree that freedom is generally a good thing, having a democratically elected government that puts some reasonable regulatory controls on that freedom in service to the common good is also something that we all should be able to agree on. The big question is where the limits of that regulatory control should be. No one thinks that we should be free to murder. So, where should the limits to government control be? That is a question worth debating. The debate should not be able to be co-opted by those who would argue for a simplified all-or-nothing Freedom versus Government question.

I believe that human nature is such that the majority of people generally act in their own self-interest. It pretty much makes sense, though I wish it wasn't so. Do that which you perceive to benefit you own life. The problem with this is that there are conflicting self-interests and that promotes conflict. If it was true that human nature had the majority of people acting for the common good, there would be less conflict.

Democratic government is in place for the purposes of the common good. Even if we all vote in our own self-interest, the results of the vote should be favorable for the majority of voters. So, as this election year progresses, let us focus on the issues of how government regulates, and not let the debate fall back on the default “Freedom versus Government” generality that creates a divisive dichotomy that polarizes our people, making the true goal of the common good harder to achieve.

We need to lead the push to a future that does not rely on fossil fuels

We have an energy problem. Everyone knows that, but there is disagreement on both what that problem exactly is and what we should do about it. I know this is a very complex issue and I am not going to go into all of the different complicating factors in this post.  That is more like something that could fill a book. So I am going to focus on looking to the future and how to plan and act to make that future the best it can be.

Regardless of the timeline that one might espouse, we can all agree that fossil fuels are finite. Even if you think we have well over a hundred year supply and that burning all of that won't harm the planet and human civilization, you MUST agree that eventually the fossil fuel resources will be so diminished as to make our reliance on them not just unsustainable but catastrophically disastrous.

That being said, I suggest that we look forward to that future. Imagine what that future would be like. What are our energy needs likely to be? How are we likely to obtain all of that energy and from what source. While there are a number of options, I am one of those that believes that an “all of the above” non-fossil fuel scenario is the most likely to provide a sustainable energy supply for the medium term future, and by that I mean the next couple of hundred years.

What are those non-fossil fuel energy sources? The most obvious is the sun. Our ability to harness a fuel source that does not originate on this planet, provides us with a source that we are unable to deplete. That is the best hope for the future. It is important to note that the wind is generated by the unequal heating of the earth by the sun and is thus an indirect form of solar energy. Hydro-electric energy is also indirectly sourced by the sun's heat warming the earth's water, evaporating it and then precipitating it at a higher altitude creating potential energy. Large scale wind and hydro require infrastructure that has impacts on the earth, but compromises must be made. We have simply over-populated our planet to the extent that we have no choice. Large scale photo-voltaic and concentrated solar installations also have these impacts. The decentralization of energy production decreases the impacts of large scale facilities. Small scale individual wind and solar arrays on homes and businesses decreases the need for large scale facilities. Nuclear energy has the potential to help us in this long transition, but the scale of the reactors needs to be brought down too, to decrease the threat of large scale catastrophe as we have recently experienced. More, smaller reactors like those in submarines and aircraft carriers would spread the risk while minimizing the impact of the inevitable accident. The transition to Thorium as a nuclear fuel source is another positive change that could provide safer nuclear energy as part of the energy we need.

Without going further into the various types of non-fossil fuel energy sources, I want to get back to envisioning the future where we are not dependent on fossil fuels and are getting the energy we need from these non-fossil alternatives.

However one might envision that future, it would be beneficial to consider the transition to that future. My thought is that if we can see that future in even the vaguest of levels of prediction, it would behoove us to make that transition as quickly as possible. In doing so, we push our civilization forward to that future. Those who lead that push are those who will profit the most from that transition.

At this point, the United States is not leading the push. The U.S. adoption of alternatives is well below countries that have made it their policy to proceed with a transition to alternative energy. As fossil fuels are depleted, and become more expensive to extract, and their effects on the environment are realized in a more and more negative way. Those countries that have made a transition will be at a huge competitive advantage.

So, I advocate for a focused push in the United States toward that imagined future where fossil fuel supply does not have us fighting for economic survival. Where fossil fuel pollution does not ravage our planet. Where we lead in the push to a new energy future. The technologies are already in place. They will only improve as time goes on. We must adopt those technologies to the fullest extent possible as soon as possible.

I envision a future where our ability to harness the sun to produce the energy we need makes energy so available and is so inexpensive that has little to no impact on our daily lives. Let's get there as soon as we can.

Otter on video

 I saw this otter porpoising all the way across this pond, but I first saw it from a moving car, so by the time I stopped and got my phone/camcorder out I missed recording a lot of it. The video I do have has been cropped and is not very good quality, but the content is pretty cool. The otter spooked a fish which breached ahead of it, but the otter was uninterested and just kept porpoising on. There was another animal that poked just its head out of the water watching the otter, way out there beyond my capabilities of identification. Perhaps a mink or turtle?

These things deserve to be preserved for our great grand children's great grand children to have the chance to see. Please. Please. Please


click for Otter porpoising across pond video

The first day of spring

Today is the first day of spring. High temperatures in the low 80s Fahrenheit. Another climate change data point.

On my way to work in the morning, I pass a number of school bus stops.

At a number of these stops, the parents are there, in their cars, mostly SUVs, with the engines running. This is bad enough, and it bothers me in the depths of normal winters, but today? Really? It was 41 degrees. Have we really come to a place where 41*F is reason to run an internal combustion engine to warm us while we are outside for a few minutes? We must awaken the masses to the necessity of eliminating the waste of our limited resources. I would guess that these people are not maliciously screwing the planet, it likely hasn't occurred to them at all that they might not run their engines. That they might save money, gasoline, and pollution. It's a bit cool out, turn on the heat. Well if today was any indication, the earth is turning on the heat.

Nature notes: First mountain bike ride in the woods in two months. The woods are dry enough. Heard Spring Peepers for the first time this season. Found a partial skull of a young white tail buck.

Update:  With record setting temperatures this week, Wednesday and Thursday topped out in the low to mid 80s.  The morning temps were in the 50s and the engines were running.  Arrgg.

Spend better to improve the quality of the economic recovery

Having seen some political stories recently related to the slow but steady improvement in the economy, I would like to make a pitch for a new economy, one based on a vision of a better future, rather than a stumbling back to a false economy based on blind consumerism.

I like to look at "the big picture."  The bigger the better.  This means considering as many aspects of cause and effect of as many factors and issues as possible, over the longest time frame relevant to humanity.

Statistically, Americans are the greatest consumers in the history.  We, in recent decades, have not used that consumer power for the greater common good, but have used our resources for satisfying our own self serving desires.  Some economists believe that if we all act in a self serving manner, then "the rising tide" of all of that individual self satisfaction "will raise" the "all boats" of the collective economy.  I think Adam Smith called this "the invisible hand"(?)

I believe that as our human population has ballooned to 7 billion, and as technology has changed our economy, and as our world has become more economically connected, that this self serving consumerism does not serve the greater good.  People do not eschew their own self interest for the common good.  Cheap goods are seen as better because we can have more.  More is seen as better.  Greed is good.  Why have a small number of high quality items when one can, for the same money, have a high number of low quality items?  We all seem to want to save money to live better.  But does it really work out that way?  I do not think so.

As our economy recovers, I believe we should all consider the ways we use our individual resources to benefit ourselves AND the greater good.  If we think about the true costs of the goods and services we consume, and weed out the wasteful short term advantages of those things that we have collectively become accustomed to, we have a chance to build a more sustainable positive future for our economy and the planet.

We all consume, but in doing so, I advocate for eliminating wasteful consumption.  In some cases this is not easy.  Planned obsolescence is built into our economy in many ways.  I have heard it described as the fact that we use permanent materials to produce temporary items and temporary materials to produce permanent items.  "Disposable" is seen as a positive attribute of many of our consumer choices.  But if we consciously try to eliminate from our consumption those things that provide short term reward we can make a start to change our economy.  When purchasing something physical, consider the utility of the item as well as how long that utility will last, how long until that item is disposed of, and what the state of it is at disposal.

One of my greatest peeves is that so many items produced today are intended to be disposed of in the same condition that they are in when they are coming off of the production line.  For a simple example let's look at the basic thing that is a plastic fork.  Okay, yes they can break, but the vast majority of plastic forks are throw away (read land filled or incinerated) in exactly the same form as when they are produced, and after having been used for mere minutes. This is not something that serves the greater good.

So, as our economy recovers (I will reserve my many other observations on this topic for later posts) I encourage everyone to think about the goods and services they purchase with consideration to the real benefit they are providing and the real cost, including external costs, that they incur.

#1 The Tipping Point

Welcome to my Blog.  This is my first post.  When considering starting a blog, I have wondered what my first post would be.  First impressions are important. Although I will definitely delve into some of my more controversial opinions here, I will start with a simple observation and what I believe it means.  So here goes:


The Tipping Point?

During the year 2011, there were some extreme weather events and cycles throughout the world.  I got the feeling, and it kept growing throughout the year, that the planet was approaching and even surpassing the "tipping point" of environmental stability.  So as of now, I consider 2011 the year the extremity of the change became undeniable, and will watch to see over the years to see if the changes that take place point to 2011 as when the switch was flipped.

It is in this context that I provide the observation of some unusual events that have occurred on my own property in the last year.  After a heavy snowfall season in the winter of 2010-11 and a relatively wet summer, the fall of 2011 was so wet for so long that our basement sump pump cycled quite consistently from early September through mid December.  This was the first time since we bought our house in 1986 that our sump pump kicked in outside of the spring snow melt.  Each spring we get water in our basement, and the sump pump kicks in.  It can last for as little as 2 weeks or so, to as long as a month and a half or more.  It's not a huge amount of water, but as the snow melts and the water table is high, the cracks in our foundation leak water into the basement.  But once that big snow melt is done, no matter how much rain we have gotten, until 2011 we have never had the sump pump run later in the year.  So, during every annual snow melt we get water in the basement.   Except this year.  Yes, it's true, for the first time since we bought our house in 1986 our sump pump has not kicked in during the spring snow melt.  We have had an unusually warm and dry winter.  The snow is almost gone.  No water in the basement.  These two firsts are somewhat shocking after 25 years.  Coincidence?  I don't think so. What is next?  A friend of mine says "the great drought of 2012".  We'll see.

While this is my story, there are millions of stories of statistical anomalies out there.  We need to act to minimize the climatic changes that will occur.  Changes will continue, and extreme weather events will happen, but we can slow the changes and avoid the worst case senario if we live our lives with an awareness of the impacts our personal existence has on the Earth and act accordingly.


Nature note:  I did a short bike ride before dinner today.  As I passed wetlands around town, the call of red-winged blackbirds, back for the season and establishing their territories was a welcome sign of spring.