READ ABOUT DETROIT AND SOLUTIONS TO ITS PROBLEMS. CLICK HERE.
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Obama Sidesteps Congress To Impose Cap And Trade

SEARCH BLOG: OBAMA and CAP AND TRADE.

The Heritage Foundation points out that the Obama administration once again sidesteps Congress through the Environmental Protection Agency which has set mileage standards so high that only a few vehicles will meet the standards... requiring manufacturers to purchase "credits" from other manufacturers if they cannot meet the standards.  The unanswered question, of course, is how will the other manufacturers meet the mileage standards?

Well, the answer to that is through the magic of EPA mileage calculations.  If you have a plug-in electric car with a range of 25 miles, the EPA does a little numerical dance and says that car gets 100 MPGe... that's miles per gallon equivalent.  You won't actually get anywhere near 100 miles per gallon, but the Obama administration gets its way into forcing manufacturers to make cars people don't want or can't afford for little or no benefit.

As stated in the article:

The new CAFE standard requires American families to bear all the costs the regulation imposes, while allowing special interests receive all the benefits. As Loris and Morgan note in their paper, “Under this new mandate, the Energy Information Administration warns that new cars priced under $15,000 may no longer be available.” While the federal government acknowledges the regulations will drive up the sticker price of vehicles, “consumers will likely realize only a fraction of the fuel savings that the government claims.”
This is not the only way the new fuel efficiency will affect car buyers. It also limits consumer choice. Consumers have other preferences as well, including weight and engine power, for safety, enjoyment, and practical reasons. Ignoring those preferences and forcing companies to make vehicles that are lighter and thus more fuel efficient has the unintended consequence of making them less safe.
It makes all of the 51%-ers feel good that they are helping save the planet and fundamentally changing the United States.  But I'm guessing that this picture will not change much.


Hey, high level government officials are exempt ... from so many laws affecting you commoners.

RELATED:


SATURDAY, APRIL 03, 2010


..

Sunday, December 02, 2012

The Case For Federal Government Agency Accountability

SEARCH BLOG: GOVERNMENT.

This video explained the plight of an old, environmentally-sound business after the Sierra Club and the National Park Service decided to make it into an environmental "criminal." h/t The Ulsterman Report.


Time to institute criminal penalties against Federal agencies and those in power responsible for this sort of malevolent behavior.  A total abuse of power.

Perhaps the locations that should have been returned to the wilderness were not.

The environmentally-conscious Sierra Club is headquartered here in this obviously environmentally-conscious building in the wilderness of San Francisco.


The environmentally-conscious National Park Service is headquartered here at the Department of the Interior in this obviously environmentally-conscious building in the wilderness of Washington, D.C.


You have to love those window air-conditioners.

Meanwhile, the injustice was finalized by Ken Salazar, Sec. of the Interior:
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Thursday the Drakes Bay Oyster Co.'s operating permit will expire at Point Reyes National Seashore on Friday, returning Drakes Estero to wilderness.
"I've taken this matter very seriously," Salazar said in a written statement. "We've undertaken a robust public process to review the matter from all sides, and I have personally visited the park to meet with the company and members of the community.
Certainly, when you take data that is irrelevant and maliciously included as misinformation, you will come up with absurd conclusions even though you have "taken this matter very seriously."  Perhaps Mr. Salazar should take the abuses very seriously.

Time to rein in the federal government.  The 51%-ers are ruining America.
..

Monday, September 17, 2012

Blinded By The Solar Light

SEARCH BLOG: SOLAR POWER

It ought to be interesting to see if or when this project breaks even for Apple.


This Is What a 20 Megawatt Solar Farm Looks Like

Read the story here.

Don't you wonder what this does to the local weather and the vision of pilots flying overhead as the sun is reflected upward?  Well, at least it doesn't kill birds, but it can't be to great for the local ecology.

2012 IS HERE

..

Friday, August 31, 2012

Energy Independence By 2020

SEARCH BLOG: ENERGY and ROMNEY

In last night's nomination acceptance speech, Mitt Romney set a goal of having the U.S. become energy independent by 2020.  That's similar to John Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon... a huge leap of faith.

In the post "North American energy independence by 2020″, David Middleton gives all sorts of facts and figures that conclude that "Based on these numbers, North American energy independence could be achieved by 2027." Now that is North American, not U.S., energy independence.  Still, that is directionally where Mitt Romney wants to take the U.S. [h/t Anthony Watts]

There are many issues to be resolved ... and quickly ... if the U.S. is to seek energy independence.
  • Export policy - would ... and could ... the U.S. restrict its exports of oil, coal, and natural gas to force consumption at the local level?  Conversely, would the U.S. make it more difficult to import oil from beyond North America?
  • Regulation - can the Environmental Protection Agency regulations be reeled in?  Can the regulatory and permitting processes be streamlined and accelerated?
  • Taxation - will tax code reflect energy policy?
  • Overcoming entrenched opposition - becoming energy independent is not simply a matter of resources development.
The fastest way to energy independence is:
  • Reversal of the coal-to-natural-gas conversions occurring under the Obama administration for the generation of electricity.
  • Expansion of nuclear powered electricity generation to augment coal as a substitute for natural gas.
  • Development of a natural gas infrastructure to fuel vehicles as an alternative use of natural gas rather than to fuel electricity plants ... combined with incentives to automotive manufacturers to expand their offerings for natural gas powered vehicles ... a decades-old technology that is primarily limited to fleets at present.
  • Expansion of oil exploration in federally-controlled lands/offshore.
  • Streamlining the judicial process to settle a myriad of blocking lawsuits that will come from those special interests who are philosophically opposed to these actions.
This is all possible under the heading "anything is possible."  Is it probable or plausible?  A better question is: will someone lead the way in the face of fanatical and often irrational opposition?

MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 2009

2012 IS HERE

..

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

55 In 25

SEARCH BLOG: AUTOMOBILES.

Well, almost 55....

U.S. announces tough new 54.5-mpg CAFE standard for vehicle fuel economy


2012 IS HERE

..

Friday, August 24, 2012

Conservation - The Law Of Unintended Consequences

SEARCH BLOG: GOVERNMENT

Big Brother knows best.  From Nature:

Protected sea lions gorge on threatened salmon
A controversial cull of California sea lions in the Columbia River to conserve salmon may leave field open for a new predator.
Be sure to use those spiral CFLs for your home. 

2012 IS HERE

..

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Science-Corrupted-By-Politics Alive In California

SEARCH BLOG: POLITICS

Earlier this week the story of Dr. Nickolas Drapela broke.  Dr. Drapela was fired from Oregon State University after being a thorn in the politics of the climate agenda at OSU.

Oregon State University Fires Scientist For Being An Unbeliever
Now, Anthony Watts reports an even more egregious firing of a 35-year university professor at UCLA.
Another skeptical university professor fired – related to CARB’s PM2.5 air pollution regulation scandal
“The facts of this case are astounding,” said David French, senior counsel for the ACLJ. “UCLA terminated a professor after 35 years of service simply because he exposed the truth about an activist scientific agenda that was not only based in fraud but violated California law for the sake of imposing expensive new environmental regulations on California businesses.”   
French said, “UCLA’s actions were so extreme that its own Academic Freedom Committee unanimously expressed its concern about the case.”  [read the whole story at the link above]
Other than a couple of professors who had their careers ruined, what's the problem?  Well, how about billions of taxpayer dollars being funneled into onerous and unnecessary special interests?

If there was any doubt that honesty and integrity have been eliminated from the progressive-environmental left-wing academia, these attempts to squash scientific-based challenges should put those doubts to rest.

2012 IS HERE

..

Friday, April 20, 2012

Obama's Dictatorship In The Name Of The Environment

SEARCH BLOG: OBAMA and ENVIRONMENT

At Human Events, this story unfolded:

President Barack Obama has an ambitious plan for Washington bureaucrats to take command of the oceans—and with it control over much of the nation’s energy, fisheries, even recreation in a move described by lawmakers as the ultimate power grab to zone the seas. 
The massive undertaking also includes control over key inland waterways and rivers that reach hundreds of miles upstream, and began with little fanfare when Obama signed an executive order in 2010 to protect the aquatic environment.  [read more] h/t Gateway Pundit
No laws have been enacted by Congress.  No reviews have been made by the courts regarding constitutionality.  President Obama has declared that all water related to the oceans within the territorial control of the U.S. ... including water sources such as rivers, streams, snow, rain, and human perspiration ... now fall under his "zoning control."  He won the election; he can do what he wants.

Want to go fishing?  Maybe not.  Want to have a boat race?  Maybe not.  Want to develop some property along the ocean?  Maybe not.  Want to drill for oil and natural gas.  Definitely not.  The President is "protecting" our water from us.  The Great Lakes?  He owns that now because they flow out to the Atlantic.  The Sierra Nevadas?  Snow melts and flows into streams and rivers and into the ocean.  He owns that now.  Your small lake?  Water evaporates and falls into the ocean.  He owns that now.

Clean fresh water is now scarce.  Clean ocean water is now scarce.  It is time for the government to manage and allocate water uses so that we will survive this scarcity.  The government must exercise such power to protect us.
They are much more comfortable spreading fear about scarcity. They are much more comfortable being experts about scarcity. They are much more comfortable being in charge of the scarcity they want to implement.  [source]
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."  George Owell - 1984

Hope and Change....

RELATED:


2012 IS HERE

..

Saturday, April 07, 2012

Coca Cola CO2 Is Environmentally Friendlier Than Coal CO2

SEARCH BLOG: ENVIRONMENT
From a 2008 article:

Coca-Cola: Bubbles 'Not a Very Large Part of Our Overall Carbon Footprint'
The Coca-Cola Company, which has become the darling of the environmental movement, is one of the world’s top users of carbon dioxide – a known greenhouse gas.

Worldwide, Coca-Cola’s operations emitted 1.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), according to what it told the Carbon Disclosure Project last year.
The argument is that the CO2 dispelled by their soft drinks is a by-product of other processes, not "new" CO2... so that doesn't count.
“We are taking carbon dioxide that is an off-product of other processes – gasification in particular, and others – and incorporating that into our beverages,” the Coke executive told CNSNews.com. “That is not a very large part of our overall carbon footprint.”
Now zip forward to the present:
For New Generation of Power Plants, a New Emission Rule From the E.P.A.
A standard of 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour for coal plants would “require something that doesn’t exist as a commercial technology,” he said. 
But the lack of a commercial technology for carbon capture is one reason that the E.P.A. could not realistically impose such a requirement on existing plants and decided to push the challenge into the future. 
Carbon capture has so far proved too expensive to be practical because the chemical work of separating carbon dioxide from the other components of exhaust gas requires large amounts of energy. 
By some estimates, what is today a 1,000-megawatt coal plant might yield only 700 megawatts after some of its energy went into a carbon capture plant in the form of steam and electricity. And sequestering the gas underground could prove difficult.
Let's examine the logic here.

  • CO2 is deemed a "pollutant" by the Supreme Court and the EPA is directed to determine what to do about it.
  • The EPA selectively focuses on coal power plants CO2 by-product and declares that any future plants must use a carbon sequestering technology that is not available, thereby effectively destroying the major source of electrical power in the U.S.
  • Meanwhile, the soft drink industry uses CO2 that is a by-product of other processes and claims it is all right because that CO2 is not "new."
  • The EPA makes no effort to require sequestering of the 1.9 million metric tons of CO2 by-product that the soft drink industry uses even though, process-wise, it is no different from the CO2 which is a by-product of coal burning.
Yes, there is a matter of scale, but not a matter of substance.  Both by-products are identical.  But we like Coca Cola ....


2012 IS HERE

..

Monday, April 02, 2012

"Planet Under Pressure" Politics

SEARCH BLOG: ENVIRONMENTALISTS

Recently, I did an update of this 2009 post H2O Worries A Real Worry with this post H2O Continues To Be More Important Than CO2 [March 05, 2012] in which I noted:

But as Peter Gleick said in 2006“Desalination will be part of California’s water future, but the future’s not here yet,” said Dr. Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute. “Most California communities can find additional water, quicker [for less money, by improving efficiency and management.”

Say, isn't that the same ethically-challenged Dr. Gleick that stole documents and made up communications supposedly from the Heartland Institute trying to discredit it as a source of climate research?  

Kind of makes you wonder what his agenda here was.  Was that "efficiency and management" simply [government restrictions] diverting water from agriculture?  Or was it more about restricting human presence in California than being honest about alternatives?  You know, herd all of the humans into the cities and let the agricultural efforts literally dry up?

Nah, that would be something a radical environmental organization might try to do.
Imagine my almost surprise when I read this yesterday:
UK Daily Mail: 'If you don't believe in climate change you must be sick': Oregon prof. Kari Norgaard likens skepticism to racism
  • Prof. Norgaard attended 4-day 'Planet Under Pressure' conference, where she presented her controversial paper...The scientists behind the event are calling for humans to be packed into denser cities so rest of planet can be surrendered to mother nature. And fellow attendee Yale U. prof. Karen Seto told MSNBC: 'We certainly don't want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].' [source]

Well, I guess that confirms it.

2012 IS HERE

..

Thursday, March 08, 2012

Dem Der Dose NoDaks May Be Smarter Than Your Average West Coast Staters

SEARCH BLOG: OIL

From Carpe Diem:

The "Economic Miracle State" of North Dakota pumped another record amount of oil during the month of January at a daily rate of more than 546,000 barrels, which was an increase of 2% and 11,000 barrels per day compared to January, and was 59% above the output level from a year earlier. It’s likely that the new record moved the Peace Garden state ahead of California to become the nation’s No. 3 oil-producing state in January, behind only Texas and Alaska. Recent estimates put California’s oil output at about535,000 barrels per day, and Alaska’s production at 593,000.  [Read full story]
You have to excuse California.  It is too busy with unbalanced budgets, water problems, and chasing after new environmental issues to worry about something so mundane as ... jobs and energy.  Well, maybe those are important in California, but just not as important.

[image]


RELATED:
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 05, 2009H2O Worries A Real Worry

The only problem is sometimes the best intented actions end up with more than one bad result.  And that's water causing havoc.  Then there is the oil war in California.

Sure, but there's nothing in North Dakota.  There are no animals or agriculture to worry about with all of that oil production.  Besides, it's North Dakota, not California.

Livestock

In the livestock category, beef cattle are the state's most important product
Milk ranks second.
North Dakota farmers also raise hogs.
Honey production in the state ranks North Dakota among the leading producers.

Crops

Wheat is the leading farm product in North Dakota, ranking second in production behind Kansas. North Dakota grows more durum wheat (used for pasta) than any other state.
North Dakota also leads all other states in the production of barley and sunflower seeds and is a leader in the production of flaxseed (linseed oil).
North Dakota is among the leading states in the production of canola seed, honey, navy beans, oats, pinto beans, rye, soybeans and sugar beets. [source]

Sure, dude. But you can't go surfin' in North Dakota. Right, you got us there.

2012 IS HERE

..

Monday, March 05, 2012

H2O Continues To Be More Important Than CO2

SEARCH BLOG: H2O

A few years ago as I viewed the devastation that was California agriculture, I wrote the following:

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 05, 2009H2O Worries A Real Worry
As I drove through wine country north of San Francisco yesterday, I could see that conditions were much better due to the very wet 2011.  Regardless, there is still a water war waging in California and it seems to be the GOP taking the side of agriculture and the Democratic Party taking the side of the smelt. Why?  Because California can't extract enough water from the ground for its needs and it can't depend on wet years to supply enough reserve for the dry years [image from SFGate].


I'm not sure why anyone from California would want to suppress one of their great economic engines by restricting needed water from agriculture.  Just as the Democrats are happy to advise coal-burning states to clean up their act or mandate new technology for automotive manufacturers, why don't they mandate that water for California cities comes after water for agriculture and smelt... and don't offer an alternative.  That would be a far more effective way of driving out humans from those concrete heat sinks.


Perhaps they can just buy their water from Israel which has figured out how to make their desert nation a water exporter.  Better yet, simply follow the example of Israel.


From Reuters:
Desalination plant could make Israel water exporter
Hey California, bite the bullet and make cities pay the real cost of their water. Just like the rest of America has to pay the real cost of clean air mandates spearheaded by California.  Quit exporting your water costs to other states... and save your agriculture in the process.

Of course, why force technology on California cities?  Isn't it cheaper to do other things... like take water from agriculture or those darling little smelt?

But as Peter Gleick said in 2006, “Desalination will be part of California’s water future, but the future’s not here yet,” said Dr. Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute. “Most California communities can find additional water, quicker and for less money, by improving efficiency and management.”


Say, isn't that the same ethically-challenged Dr. Gleick that stole documents and made up communications supposedly from the Heartland Institute trying to discredit is as a source of climate research?  


Kind of makes you wonder what his agenda here was.  Was that "efficiency and management" simply diverting water from agriculture?  Or was it more about restricting human presence in California than being honest about alternatives?  You know, herd all of the humans into the cities and let the agricultural efforts literally dry up?


Nah, that would be something a radical environmental organization might try to do.


Hey, if California is so willing to force their ideas of desirable technology on the rest of the nation, isn't it time for California to dance to its own tunes?

Conservationists Push Back Against Desalination in California  Of course....

2012 IS HERE

..

Friday, February 17, 2012

Environment Or Climate - Not The Same

SEARCH BLOG: CLIMATE CHANGE

From windmill farms that are economically unfeasible to solar panel companies with no real market, government continues to try to tell us what is good for us by coming up with "solutions" that solve nothing and cause economic distress to our nation.  The latest effort, headed by Hillary Clinton, is a multi-national effort to control carbon soot, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons.



The environment, the people, and the government would be better served to stop dumping all these efforts into the "global warming" basket.  It is a tired concept and will surely be judged nonsense framed as it is.  Rather than tilting at windmills, the federal government would be better served to work with states and industries to find economical ways to provide abundant energy while being reasonable about environmental concerns... some efforts require some pollution... manageable pollution.

The cost to achieve "environmental" 6-sigma can be significant... the benefits for "climate change" are minuscule.


   

..

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Your Green Subsidy Dollars Working - In China

SEARCH BLOG: CHINA

Now, Changsha and two adjacent cities are emerging as a center of clean energy manufacturing. They are churning out solar panels for the American and European markets, developing new equipment to manufacture the panels and branching into turbines that generate electricity from wind. By contrast, clean energy companies in the United States and Europe are struggling. Some have started cutting jobs and moving operations to China in ventures with local partners. [source]
Some will argue that is just fine.  We get cheap goods to solve our future energy problems.  Free trade wins again!

The rest of the story:
But much of China’s clean energy success lies in aggressive government policies that help this crucial export industry in ways most other governments do not. These measures risk breaking international rules to which China and almost all other nations subscribe, according to some trade experts interviewed by The New York Times. 
Free trade, not a chance; it is time to demand reciprocal trade.  China is using trade as a weapon to undermine the manufacturing and strategic capabilities of the United States and Europe.  This is beyond the ken of economists.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

..

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

New Study: Asphalt Surfaces Hotter Than Watered Fields

SEARCH BLOG: ENVIRONMENT

A new study indicates that "urbanization"... the process of replacing natural landscapes or agricultural land with paved streets and concrete structures... seems to make temperatures in the areas higher. [source]  Well, duh!

Haven't you ever heard something like, "Lows tonight in the 50s; cooler in the outlying areas?"  Replace a naturally cooled system with a giant heat sink and what do you get?  Come on, the answer isn't that hard.  Now put your weather stations inside those heat sinks and what do you get?  Really, it isn't that hard.

Now, reflect upon the fact that this urbanization process has increased remarkably over the past century and that weather stations are increasingly within the areas affected by these giant heat sinks and what do you suppose happens to the weather data?  No, I won't explain it further.  You're smart enough to figure that out.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

..

Friday, April 02, 2010

A Nation [Weather] Divided

SEARCH BLOG: WEATHER

Most of the winter, the Pacific states enjoyed warm weather while the eastern states suffered through cold and record snow. What a difference a month makes.

Climate change we can live with.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

..

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

President Obama's Popularity

SEARCH BLOG: OBAMA

President Obama's popularity rating has improved dramatically since the State Of The Union speech when he dramatically shifted focus from the climate red herring and the health care red herring to the one major concern for most Americans: the economy.

It didn't take a rocket scientist to understand what the American people want to hear from their President. So, better late than never, President Obama told them what they wanted to hear... and his approval rating jumped from minus 19 to minus 6... probably on the hope of change rather than any real change in direction.

I suspect it is the absence of talk about health care, climate, and alternative energy that has given people the illusion of change in the President's agenda. What hasn't changed are:

  • a focus on spending, taxes, and more regulation rather than working with business to improve the environment for jobs creation
  • a focus on restricting the growth of existing energy sources in the hope that unreliable alternative sources will sustain the needs of businesses and consumers without added crippling costs
  • a focus on government growth in the belief that bureaucracy brings out the best in our nation
The fundamentals will be the eventual undoing of the President's agenda... and his popularity.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

..

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Climate IQ

SEARCH BLOG: GEOGRAPHY and CLIMATE

Take a brain break and answer these questions:

  1. What is the world's largest desert
  2. How many square miles is this desert
  3. What is the highest temperature recorded in this desert
If you answered:
  1. The Sahara
  2. 3.5 million square miles [approximately the same size as the United States - extra credit]
  3. 136°F [recorded September 1922... before global warming - extra credit]
You are absolutely incorrect!



The answers are:
  1. Antarctica
  2. 7°F
  3. 5.5 million square miles
Although it is covered in frozen water, it is the driest place on earth with less than 2" of precipitation annually [source].


Not everything about climate is obvious.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

..

Sunday, January 03, 2010

Climate Versus Environment Versus Unions

SEARCH BLOG: GLOBAL WARMING and ENVIRONMENT

An interesting dynamic is developing among traditional left-wing organizations. It seems that those who want to save the world through alternative energy are running into opposition by those who want to save the world by protecting the environment who are are running into opposition by those who want to protect their jobs.

  • Union workers upstage N.J. environmental groups' campaign against planned Linden plant
By Brian T. Murray/The Star-Ledger

October 15, 2009, 7:36PM

LINDEN -- Rowdy union workers today upstaged a campaign kick-off by New Jersey environmental groups opposing a unique, coal-fueled electric plant proposed for the City of Linden that will capture its own carbon dioxide output and pipe it under the Atlantic Ocean.

Read more....
  • Some Environmentalists Against Solar Power

Andy Kondrat

We like solar power, right? In the face of all this debate about coal and oil and gas and whatnot, we can look at solar power and find a solution, right? Clean, renewable technology that any lover of the environment can get behind, right? Wrong.Some environmentalists have started to fight back against solar power, especially in the Southern California deserts, where many solar projects are planned.

Read more....
  • The Case Against Local Environmentalism

In case you missed it, a guest post from Edward L. Glaeser, an economics professor at Harvard, from the Economix blog:

Can environmentalism be bad for the environment?

In Massachusetts, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound has led the fight against providing alternative energy with a wind farm off of Cape Cod. Greenpeace declares that “nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomical and unnecessary.” In Canada, the Sierra Club fights against the development of hydroelectric power, fearing “toxic mercury increases in fish.”

Read more....
Of course they are all against any kind of corporate profits and bonuses, so they still have that in common.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

..

Saturday, December 05, 2009

H2O Worries A Real Worry

SEARCH BLOG: CALIFORNIA

Unlike fictitious CO2 problems, H2O is a genuine problem in many states. It's a giant problem in California.

I have an interest in California because one of my son's and his family live there... and I think it has some interesting fruits and nuts. The problem is that there is a water supply problem affecting humans and agriculture. Oh, there is a lot of water nearby, but just not available.

Recently, California got a total of $40 billion "to finance a safe drinking water and water supply reliability program for California." An article in Environmental News Service discusses this financing. Governor Schwarzenegger said, "This money will fund a variety of different projects which will fix the Delta, it will restore its ecosystem and it will go and build a better conveyance system. And we will have, once and for all, below and above the ground water storage, which we have been fighting for and I wouldn't have signed this without that water storage."

"In addition," said [Secretary of the Interior Ken] Salazar, "the administration is fully committed to funding and moving forward with the construction of the Delta-Mendota Canal/California Aqueduct Intertie, pending the completion of a Record of Decision on the project, which we anticipate within the next 60 days. [EPA]

interactive image:  photo of the Delta-Mendota Canal; click for larger photo
The Delta-Mendota Canal

So water will be moved from one place to another and that may solve the problem... or not. Just another thought. Certainly, fresh water could be supplied to all cities near the Pacific coast through desalination plants that cost about $100 million apiece. California could build 200 of those for half of the $40 billion and divert a lot of natural fresh water to the central farming regions using the remaining $20 billion toward that. Coastal cities don't need mountain water; farming valleys do.

Or the money can be spent on pumping CO2 into ground storage instead.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

..

Can"t Find It?

Use the SEARCH BLOG feature at the upper left. For example, try "Global Warming".

You can also use the "LABELS" below or at the end of each post to find related posts.

Blog Archive

Cost of Gasoline - Enter Your Zipcode or Click on Map

CO2 Cap and Trade

There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.
Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956)
“The Divine Afflatus,” A Mencken Chrestomathy, chapter 25, p. 443 (1949)
... and one could add "not all human problems really are."
It was beautiful and simple, as truly great swindles are.
- O. Henry
... The Government is on course for an embarrassing showdown with the European Union, business groups and environmental charities after refusing to guarantee that billions of pounds of revenue it stands to earn from carbon-permit trading will be spent on combating climate change.
The Independent (UK)

Tracking Interest Rates

Tracking Interest Rates

FEDERAL RESERVE & HOUSING

SEARCH BLOG: FEDERAL RESERVE for full versions... or use the Blog Archive pulldown menu.

February 3, 2006
Go back to 1999-2000 and see what the Fed did. They are following the same pattern for 2005-06. If it ain't broke, the Fed will fix it... and good!
August 29, 2006 The Federal Reserve always acts on old information... and is the only cause of U.S. recessions.
December 5, 2006 Last spring I wrote about what I saw to be a sharp downturn in the economy in the "rustbelt" states, particularly Michigan.
March 28, 2007
The Federal Reserve sees no need to cut interest rates in the light of adverse recent economic data, Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday.
The Fed chairman said ”to date, the incoming data have supported the view that the current stance of policy is likely to foster sustainable economic growth and a gradual ebbing in core inflation”.

July 21, 2007 My guess is that if there is an interest rate change, a cut is more likely than an increase. The key variables to be watching at this point are real estate prices and the inventory of unsold homes.
August 11, 2007 I suspect that within 6 months the Federal Reserve will be forced to lower interest rates before housing becomes a black hole.
September 11, 2007 It only means that the overall process has flaws guaranteeing it will be slow in responding to changes in the economy... and tend to over-react as a result.
September 18, 2007 I think a 4% rate is really what is needed to turn the economy back on the right course. The rate may not get there, but more cuts will be needed with employment rates down and foreclosure rates up.
October 25, 2007 How long will it be before I will be able to write: "The Federal Reserve lowered its lending rate to 4% in response to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and massive numbers of foreclosures that threaten the banking and mortgage sectors."
November 28, 2007 FED VICE CHAIRMAN DONALD KOHN
"Should the elevated turbulence persist, it would increase the possibility of further tightening in financial conditions for households and businesses," he said.

"Uncertainties about the economic outlook are unusually high right now," he said. "These uncertainties require flexible and pragmatic policymaking -- nimble is the adjective I used a few weeks ago."
http://www.reuters.com/

December 11, 2007 Somehow the Fed misses the obvious.
fed_rate_moves_425_small.gif
[Image from: CNNMoney.com]
December 13, 2007 [from The Christian Science Monitor]
"The odds of a recession are now above 50 percent," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "We are right on the edge of a recession in part because of the Fed's reluctance to reduce interest rates more aggressively." [see my comments of September 11]
January 7, 2008 The real problem now is that consumers can't rescue the economy and manufacturing, which is already weakening, will continue to weaken. We've gutted the forces that could avoid a downturn. The question is not whether there will be a recession, but can it be dampened sufficiently so that it is very short.
January 11, 2008 This is death by a thousand cuts.
January 13, 2008 [N.Y. Times]
“The question is not whether we will have a recession, but how deep and prolonged it will be,” said David Rosenberg, the chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch. “Even if the Fed’s moves are going to work, it will not show up until the later part of 2008 or 2009.
January 17, 2008 A few days ago, Anna Schwartz, nonagenarian economist, implicated the Federal Reserve as the cause of the present lending crisis [from the Telegraph - UK]:
The high priestess of US monetarism - a revered figure at the Fed - says the central bank is itself the chief cause of the credit bubble, and now seems stunned as the consequences of its own actions engulf the financial system. "The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it," she says, daring to utter a thought that fellow critics mostly utter sotto voce.
January 22, 2008 The cut has become infected and a limb is in danger. Ben Bernanke is panicking and the Fed has its emergency triage team cutting rates... this time by 3/4%. ...

What should the Federal Reserve do now? Step back... and don't be so anxious to raise rates at the first sign of economic improvement.
Individuals and businesses need stability in their financial cost structures so that they can plan effectively and keep their ships afloat. Wildly fluctuating rates... regardless of what the absolute levels are... create problems. Either too much spending or too much fear. It's just not that difficult to comprehend. Why has it been so difficult for the Fed?

About Me

My photo
Michigan, United States
Air Force (SAC) captain 1968-72. Retired after 35 years of business and logistical planning, including running a small business. Two sons with advanced degrees; one with a business and pre-law degree. Beautiful wife who has put up with me for 4 decades. Education: B.A. (Sociology major; minors in philosopy, English literature, and German) M.S. Operations Management (like a mixture of an MBA with logistical planning)