News No logic for inaction - Global Warming

[D H]

Which of these constitutes institutionalized bribery? Where do you draw the line?

• Ten farmers, upset about a new Federal mandate, pool their money together and send one of the farmers to Washington to talk to their congresscritters.
• The farmer comes back completely dissatisfied. He organizes ten groups of ten farmers each from across the county. They send the farmer back to Washington D.C. for a longer period of time. Still no satisfaction. The proposed legislation will hurt farmers immensely. Washington doesn't care.
• The farmer now organizes hundreds of groups from all over the state. The send several farmers back to Washington to harangue all of the state's congresscritters. Washington is now starting to pay attention.
• Farmers from neighboring states join the cause. Retired farmers volunteers to spend full time in Washington if the group will pay their expenses.
• The movement expands. The group decides to hire a (gasp) lobbyist to help their cause.

Where do you draw the line? Is it OK for employees to lobby congress through their unions, but companies cannot?

Giving bribes is already illegal. Exercizing my free speech rights is not illegal yet (but there are elements of both parties that want to curtail those rights).

 

[denverdoc]

Looks good to me, up until the time the farmers send the lobbyist--this effectively short circuits the democratic or republican process. If the farmers in the above hypothetical, were able to mobilize as you suggest, they don't need a lobbyist
J

 

[D H]

Theres an idea. Limit input from special interest groups, i.e. lobbyists. Colorado passed a bill last Nov that does exactly this.

Nice ammendment. It prevents gifts (including meals) to elected and appointed government officials and government employees, apparently including awards (so long, CU Nobel prize candidates) and scholarships (oops). It looks like you guys wrote another gem, amendment 27, which prevented people from volunteering for political candidates (oops again).

Looks good to me, up until the time the farmers send the lobbyist--this effectively short circuits the democratic or republican process. If the farmers in the above hypothetical, were able to mobilize as you suggest, they don't need a lobbyist

What is a lobbyist? Can he/she be distinguished by the horns growing from their head? How does hiring someone to talk for you short circuit the democratic process? Banning it certainly short-circuits my First Amendment rights. Note well: Colorado Amendment 41 does not prevent lobbyists from providing input to legislators. Doing so would violate the US Constitution.

 

[denverdoc]

We will likely have to agree to disagree on this; by short circuit, I refer to the situation where power in the form of economic clout trumps popular interest. I have no problem with the lobbyist talking to the representatives, so long as we all have equal access, something I think you would have to agree doesn't exist, if for no other reason than constraints of time.

Who are the most powerful lobbies in the US today: pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Just there to look out for Joe Q no doubt.

Once upon a time, physicians were wined, dined, and given lavish handouts including ski vacations etc by pharm companies. Common sense stood up to this practice, and I believe our better interests have been served by prohibiting these practices, (tho a fair amt of wining, and dining still goes on, it is always within the context of an educational meeting and spouses, etc are forbidden from benefitting). So I still have half a dozen drug Ho's knocking on my door weekly, but my decicions will have to be guided by their persuasiveness and not some 3 day junket.

 

[D H]

I would say the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbies. They have money and voters that they can use to throw their weight around in Washington. Pharma and insurance only have money.

How do you limit contact between politicians and evil lobbyists without stomping all over the First Amendment? And what exactly is an evil lobbyist? Contrary to popular opinion, they cannot be recognized by the pair of horns growing out of their heads.

 

[denverdoc]

I would say the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbies. They have money and voters that they can use to throw their weight around in Washington. Pharma and insurance only have money.

How do you limit contact between politicians and evil lobbyists without stomping all over the First Amendment? And what exactly is an evil lobbyist? Contrary to popular opinion, they cannot be recognized by the pair of horns growing out of their heads.

Just behind the NRA last time I looked Thats 14 million vs 35 million.

You want business as usual,

http://www.dirtymoneywatch.org/author/?authorId=4529835

Fine, but I think taking the most egregious abuse out of the system is a good idea, as well as a strong dose of reform for campaign financing.

 

[edward]

I would say the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbies. They have money and voters that they can use to throw their weight around in Washington. Pharma and insurance only have money.

Only have money?? That is all that is needed on K street.

 

[Astronuc]

Now interestingly, TXU is the biggest wind energy provider in Texas. They are involved in a big buyout deal with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) and Texas Pacific Group.

The deal was remarkable not only for its size but for the role that environmentalists played in the negotiations, which were first reported Friday evening. To secure the support of these groups, the bidding consortium has agreed to scale back significantly on TXU's controversial plan to build 11 new coal plants.

Environmental Defense has hired Perella Weinberg Partners, the boutique firm founded by veteran investment banker Joseph R. Perella, to advise it as the group takes on an unusual role in the $38 billion buyout of Texas energy giant TXU, The New York Times reports. In bringing in a banker, the influential environmental group is taking a page from Wall Street's deal-making playbook and may be seeking an even more powerful seat at the bargaining table with TXU and its suitors. For Perella Weinberg, the unconventional alliance may be a bet on a new force in deal negotiations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/business/08deal.html

HOUSTON, March 2 — Texas, as everyone knows, does everything big. Its giant oil and gas fields dominate America’s energy patch. It is now the nation’s largest wind power producer, with more than 2,000 turbines gathering some of the country’s strongest currents. It gets the booby prize for being the biggest producer of greenhouse gases.

And now Texas faces a big hole in its electricity production, since the country’s second-most-populous state also happens to be one of the fastest growing because of immigration and the rise in riches from the recent increase in oil and gas prices.

That hole just got bigger as the TXU Corporation, the state’s biggest utility, scrapped plans for eight new coal-fired plants under a deal it has agreed to with potential new owners. The deal has delighted many environmentalists, but it has also stoked one Texas-sized problem.

Unless new generation is built quickly from some source, Texas energy production in 2009 will fall below reserves recommended by the state operator of the power transmission grid for guaranteeing smooth operations during peak periods of high heat.

Texas officials must figure out how to replace the 6,000 megawatts that TXU’s former plan would have added to the grid, equivalent to about 10 percent of the state’s current installed capacity. This comes as the state’s population is expected to grow by 20 percent, to nearly 30 million people, over the next decade.

. . . . continued

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/business/08energy.html?dlbk


TXU has indicated that it is willing to scrap plans for 8 coal plants - and some environmental groups will push to scrap the remaining three. Likely, capacity shortfall cannot be met by wind and solar alone - so the other seemingly viable option would be several new (Gen III or III+) nuclear power plants.

It used to be that conventional wisdom held that a 1000 MWe electric plant could provide for 1 million homes (that was before 1 kW hair dryers ). Now with homes typcially having 200 A service, a 1000 MWe is considered to supply about 500,000 homes.

 

[Astronuc]

And look again!

Citigroup Ponies Up $50 Billion to Fund Green Projects
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10080659

All Things Considered, May 8, 2007 · Citigroup Inc., the largest U.S. bank, says it plans to commit $50 billion to environmental projects over the next decade. The amount is the biggest commitment yet from Wall Street to address climate change.

Apparently Bank of America will commit $20 billion to programs aimed at reducing Global Warming.

The programs involve not only alternative energy but also conservation measures, which makes sense for the bottom line of many large companies.

 

[Skyhunter]

And look again!

Citigroup Ponies Up $50 Billion to Fund Green Projects
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10080659


Apparently Bank of America will commit $20 billion to programs aimed at reducing Global Warming.

The programs involve not only alternative energy but also conservation measures, which makes sense for the bottom line of many large companies.

This reminds me of when the IBM PC was released. Business leaders decided that micro computers were the direction of the future and the rest is history.

General Motors joins USCAP's call for aggressive pollution cuts

In a move that transforms the political landscape, General Motors is the first automobile manufacturer to join the coalition of high-level corporate and environmental leaders. The group's mission is to urge the federal government to:

cut greenhouse gas emissions 60-80 percent,
create business incentives and,
act swiftly and thoughtfully.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=5828

I have looked at all the options and my conclusion is that we must reduce consumption. Just like the 4 R's of recycling (reduce, reuse, recycle, and rot), reducing is the best option (no energy consumed). In a household of 5 adults and teens, our household produces one small bag of garbage a week. The contents of that garbage is 95% plastic.

If plastic packaging was to be replaced with bio-plastics that can be composted in a hot pile, we could easily reach 90% diversion of waste currently going to landfills.

There needs to be a comprehensive global strategy to meet the challenges the world will face this century.

I am encouraged by business decisions to confront the challenges. I just hope that they don't make it worse. Flex-fuel vehicles could exacerbate the problem.

Current petroleum fortified industrial mono-crop agriculture is unsustainable. Switching to bio-fuels will only accelerate the loss of soil. Cellulosic ethanol will further deplete the soil by removing all the organic mass from the land and returning nothing.

http://energybulletin.net/28610.html

There’s so much life in the soil, there can be 10 "biomass horses" underground for every horse grazing on an acre of pasture (Wardle 2004). If you dove into the soil and swam around, you’d be surrounded by miles of thin strands of mycorrhizal fungi that help plant roots absorb more nutrients and water, plus millions of creatures, most of them unknown. There’d be thousands of species in just a handful of Earth –- springtails, bacteria, and worms digging airy subways. As you swam along, plant roots would tower above you like trees as you wove through underground skyscrapers.

"The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself." - President Franklin D. Roosevelt

$500 billion and counting to occupy Iraq.

Vanesh could be correct that we are a doomed species. The greatest threat facing mankind is our own greed.

 

[Skyhunter]

Logic for Inaction

How is this for a line of logic.

The wealthy industrialized nations will not bear the brunt of catastrophic climate change. We have the wealth and resources to adapt and survive. Just like in New Orleans, it is a great way to rid prime real estate of all the unsavory poor people living there.

As long as you are a member of the club (shareholder) you will be fine. And 500 years from now. The new continental tropics will be a wild Utopian paradise without any poor people to spoil the experience. And our privileged progeny will inherit this new world.

 

[Smurf]

don't be too sure, we have a regenerative underclass, so in 500 years we'll probably have a bunch of new poor people.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=C4B62D71-E7F2-99DF-3C3B53587E1B5AC2&pageNumber=1&catID=1
Changes to agricultural practice and forestry management could cut greenhouse gas emissions, buying time to develop alternative technologies

Saving the trees could slow climate change, new research shows. Each year, nearly 33 million acres of forestland around the world is cut down, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Tropical felling alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon—some 20 percent of all man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—to the atmosphere annually. If such losses were cut in half, it could save 500 million metric tons of carbon annually and contribute 12 percent of the total reductions in GHG emissions required to avoid unpleasant global warming, researchers recently reported in Science.

Forest depletion ultimately contributes more GHG emissions than all the cars and trucks in use worldwide, says Werner Kurz, a forest ecologist with Natural Resources Canada, who was not involved with the study. "What we are doing in these tropical forests is really a massive problem."

Changes in forest management and agricultural practices could significantly reduce the threat of global warming much more quickly than can technological solutions such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) from coal-fired power plants, according to experts. "We don't know how to do CCS. These are things we could do today," says Bruce McCarl, an agricultural economist at Texas A&M University in College Station. "They are a bridge to the future."

Don't use wood or paper?

While people argue about GW or AGW, others are proposing solutions to GW apparently assuming its AGW. Hmmm.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While people argue about GW or AGW, others are proposing solutions to GW apparently assuming its AGW. Hmmm.

Some people argue and some people take action.

We don't have the luxury of time to wait for certainty - to act is the only logical course. And in the mean time we create an entirely new and clean economy that keeps the $300 Billion spent on foreign oil annually, at home.

 

[Astronuc]

We don't have the luxury of time to wait for certainty - to act is the only logical course. And in the mean time we create an entirely new and clean economy that keeps the $300 Billion spent on foreign oil annually, at home.

Even if it is GW that motivates it, it great to develop a theoretically renewable/sustainable source of fuel. The algae seems to be a great idea - transforming sunlight into stored chemical energy.

It would seem algae makes a lot more sense than growing crops for fuel.