Consumer Influence

Relying on the Government to make the world better is seldom a good strategy.  First the Government can't decide what is better.

We have power as individuals and certainly the most effective one is our pocketbook.

Making contributions to candidates who support your views is one way.  We have turned the political process into a quest for money to run campaigns and publish or air ads.

A even more effective way to influence is by the products we buy.   Many of us do this to some extent already, if we are aware of a company that supports policies we oppose.  Of course what would be more helpful is a way to easily know if products and services we but are made by responsible companies.

We see that many of us are willing to buy products that are organic, and some of them are even certified to be so.  They do generally cost a little more and may or may not be better, but the concept that they eschew harmful pesticides is certainly a good goal.

What is not as clear is what products are made by environmentally sound companies.  There are some products that are certified for various attributes, often related to a specific issues, we don't generally know if the company is in fact trying to minimize environmental damage.

There are a number of organizations that will certify environmentally safe products, such as Good Housekeeping Green, but generally the labels are poorly understood and often ignored.

Take Energy Star products.  These are helpful if you want to know the carbon footprint of that particular product but not if you want to know whether it was produced in an environmentally safe manner.

We need to demand that products we buy do what they can to protect the earth in their manufacture.  The more we choose safe products the more they will be produced.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Nature

I was watching a show about packs of painted wolves in Africa and how they interact and hunt.

What wasn't clear near until nearly the end that everything that was happening was happening in a nature preserve surrounded by human habitation.

Yes in most ways they live as they always have, the animals, but they have limited range and are endangered.

Its very hard to find areas on this planet not being taken over by humans or at least not changed by us.

The oceans, as vast as they seem, now have huge islands of plastic garbage from us.  We have been devising ways to clean them up but of course it would have been easier not to create them in the first place.

Polar bears have recently infested a remote area in Siberia where humans live because the melting ice is destroying their habitat.  I don't imagine this will end well for the bears.

This isn't totally new, humans have been altering the environment since very early on, we just have now achieved worldwide capabilities.

In many cases its too late, a lot of species are simply gone and not coming back.

Nature is not kind.  It really operates on a survival of the fittest concept where the ability of a species to exploit another is generally limited to its own survival.  If you eliminate your food source you starve so over time the natural order ended up in a state of equilibrium.

Humans have gone outside of nature and converted habitats for our use.

We have sort of gotten away with it so far, although a fair number of modern ailments may be the result of our activity.

We can't get away with it forever, or can we?

Green New Deal

The sweeping reach of the proposal called the Green New Deal is probably going to make it problematic.

Of course the future is going to be green, it just depends on how we get there.

Tying the conversion to renewable energy to many other progressive issues may not be the best way to get there, unless of course the public accepts it.

The comparison to the new deal is also a bit problematic.

The new deal was enacted because of the Great Depression that created a true crisis in America and it did introduce some lasting programs.

Many of its initiatives were also found unconstitutional and subsequently reversed.

The adoption of affordable renewable energy is something we should be pursuing both because it is an industry of the future and good for the environment and our health.

Guaranteed health care for all is also a worthwhile goal as are the other initiatives, but lumping them all together gives too many failure points.

Its a bit unclear if the proposals by the Democrats include all the points outlined here,https://www.gp.org/gnd_full but by using the same language as the Green Party the assumption is it does.

We need renewable energy and it should be a goal we invest in to save the planet and future generations.

It shouldn't be encumbered by all the other items, which are by themselves quite controversial.

Political Climate?

We live in a world where everything seems to turn into a political argument.  Take climate change.  This is a matter of science and at this time the science universally points to a man made contribution to it.  You can argue the fringes of the science, such as how much is natural versus how much is human related, but we are clearly in a global warming trend caused by the increasing amounts of CO2 in the air.  Add carbon to the air is contributory,

Now as we see the polar ice caps recede and the ocean temperatures rise, nothing about it is political.  However, because the way to prevent it includes restrictions on certain activities, we see it politicized.

It is not "fake news" or a liberal plot to hurt this country in some fashion.  The oceans are rising and we were and are one of the primary contributors to the problem.  Policies designed to promote short term profits for a few at the cost of humanity are, well, short sighted.

We see one party take positions that are anti-science.  Since the people they dislike, the liberals, accept science as valid, they won't.  This is part of the great liberal conspiracy to …. well I don't know what, but its something bad.

The reactions are so silly that when something that the conservatives have supported for pretty much forever get associated with a liberal they suddenly oppose it.

To some extent they argue that it is part of the plan to grow the Government as the regulations will have to be enforced.  Complying with the regulations might cost some industries some profit, profit they can use to make campaign contributions to their friends.  Meanwhile the rest of us have to deal with the consequences.

They just take the money and vote.

Hot Tomorrows

I gather some people still don't accept the scientific evidence about climate change or don't think human activities play a part.

The evidence is really beyond reasonable or any doubt so I think that is simply wishful thinking.

Either way why would you not want to stop the abuse we impose on nature every day?

It shouldn't be a political issue, although it has been turned into one.

The main opposition comes from those whose profits are related to polluting the earth and who don't want to cut into profits to stop.

This is similar to the cigarette manufacturers who argued their product wasn't dangerous just to make some extra money.

They mostly got away with it and the victims who suffer from or have died from lung cancer and other ailments are the victims.

In this case we are all going to be the victims of the changing climate with admittedly varying results.

Certainly our coastal communities should be the most concerned but heat waves, fires and droughts might impact many areas as the temperature keeps rising.

We shouldn't be rolling back regulations, we should push harder for clean air and a better tomorrow.

We need forward looking leadership, not ones trying to switch into reverse.

More Pollution

Reports are that the current administration is planning on rolling back requirements related to reducing air pollution.

Specifically they are going to allow power plants to pollute more than the current rules allow going forward.

As I understand what they are arguing it is because the current rules were imposed in violation of the authority of the EPA.

Of course it also may benefit some coal mine owners as demand for coal will be reduced less quickly.

To a small extent it may save some coal mining jobs but coal is not the fuel of the future, natural gas is abundant, cleaner and cheaper.

Of course as solar technology improves, we will see it overtake the other methods more and more.

The fact that solar can be installed at the point of use and reduce energy bills mean it will continue to grow in use over time.

Is this attempt to appease some coal mine owners a dangerous thing?  Well we have a crisis coming of biblical proportions with climate change.  Every thing that makes it worse is a problem, its just a matter of degree.

These are pretty significant impacts based on the projections but of course they are going to play with the numbers and show that emissions will still be going down, just not as much.

As the glaciers melt and flood our coastal cities assuming they haven't been destroyed by hurricanes due to rising ocean temperatures we should consider that argument.

Maybe we just need to remember it while we vote in November.

Environment Benefits

I was reading about an agreement reached recently concerning fishing for Krill in the Antarctic.

It seems that the amount of Krill available is not the problem, simply that the easiest to fish areas are also where much of the marine life harvests krill, the bottom of the food chain.

The agreement simply is that the krill will be harvested in other areas, where impact to penguins and other animals (not the krill) will be minimized.

So a plentiful supply of krill oil will be available as a supplement and hopefully the Adele penguins and humpback whales will continue to have plentiful food.

Its this type of common sense management that is our best hope to save the planet for future generations.

Thee are things we all can do to reduce our environmental footprint, whether the Government mandates it or not.

Using environmental long lasting light bulbs helps the environment as well as your pocketbook as the extra cost of buying them is offset by reduced utility bills.

Many poser plants were switching to natural gas because its cheaper, cleaner, more easily transported and plentiful.  The dontard's administration is trying to mandate use of coal because, well he's a dontard, but the economies will prevail.

Smart decisions is not always the case as Americans after the reduced gas prices of the Obama administration went back to SUVs.  Even there we see that the current models are much more fuel efficient than their predecessors were although obviously not as efficient as smaller cars or hybrids.

Still, even with small setbacks, we see a pretty clear path towards smarter products and smarter behavior since it is usually something that has pretty immediate benefits.

Working at home or even attending classes at home is less stressful on the environment and the people doing it.

There are clear advantages to home shopping say and yes it hurt malls and some stores, but in the long run it is better for the planet as well.

Some lament the lack of social interaction, and that may indeed prove to be a problem, but it may not, it may just be a different type of society, perhaps better, perhaps worse.

One World

The consequences of our current administration are going to be politically troublesome for quite some time because of the changes to the Supreme Court and some of the damage done internationally to our influence and reputation.

The fact that he seems to have been so easily bamboozled by the North Koreans and is cozying up to the Russians while turning away from our long term allies in the west could be extremely disruptive, possibly leading to potential warfare and destruction.

However, it would seem somewhat unthinkable that the world could go so off kilter, if it hadn't happened so many times before and the biggest danger is that the dontard creates a rallying cry for people like him, to stand up to him, in certain countries.

As dangerous as that may be, the worst damage is what might happen to all of us because of his horrible environmental problems.

It might not be clear what he is doing, but his America first policy contains a formula for disaster.

Consider that the developed countries, including us have been the primary polluters of the world since the Industrial Revolution, while many third world countries were mostly left behind.

Now we see those countries, demanding a better lifestyle for their citizens and in order to get there they will inevitably add to the pollution problems we have.

The Paris climate accords attempted to address this issue by allowing the undeveloped countries more leeway while asking the developed countries to work harder to reduce carbon emissions.

On the face of it, it appears to be a bit of an advantage to the third world countries, except of course they agreed to develop more environmentally friendly technology with the developed world's support.

Economically it does help them a bit, but environmentally it went a long way to addressing climate change.

The dontard ignoring climate change wants to continue letting America increase pollution and environmental damage.

If the third world countries respond by doing the same we will not address climate change but increase it dramatically.

These are consequences that are very difficult to reverse and the damage is going to hurt all of us.

It is after all, just one world.

Earth Day

Today is Earth day which is a reminder that we all are totally dependent on the planet for our very existence.

Its impossible to know if we are unique in the universe.  Our egos tell us we are, but the chances of that are incredibly slim considering how many planets there are.

It would be easier if the whole thing was the result of divine action and not the result of a series of random events.

Its in fact pretty unlikely but that's not a discussion for today.

Our obligation to take care of the earth is one of self preservation.

We know enough to know that mankind has been one of the most successful organisms on this planet and our ability to impact it has grown with our numbers and our technology.

We have very clear evidence that we have impacted the environment and those who deny it are ignoring a number of historical examples.

It wasn't that long ago that our use of DDT was threatening the existence of bald eagles as it made their eggs untenable and once it was eliminated the birds recovered.

Similarly we have seen positive results related to some of our waterways and fisheries as we reduced human pollution and overfishing.

Why then should we ignore the fact that we are polluting the atmosphere and threatening our future?

Yes it will inconvenience a few business owners, but mandating clean methods of production will benefit us all.

We all also need to do what we can, the changes are in fact harmless and ultimately life saving.

If not for us, for our children and grandchildren.

Swamp Monster

The dotard ran on a platform that included draining the swamp, but as it turns out he actually meant he was going to destroy environmentally important wetlands.

Despite all the scientific consensus including a report issued by the US Government itself he fails to accept that climate change is caused by carbon emissions.

The good news is that he's about the only one.

Even the propaganda channel's people know its real, even if they have to have faux experts on to say otherwise.

Sort of the way paid spokesmen tried to defend cigarettes, long after the manufacturers knew better.

The energy companies are looking to the future and developing cleaner natural gas, which has its own issues but is better than coal or oil.

Solar and wind are being adopted and getting more affordable and because they are all domestically available it will reduce our trade deficit and help the environment at the same time.

Of course draining the swamp is getting harder as the water levels rise due to climate warming, but considering the dotard's policies, maybe it will save a few species.

I was listening to him berate South Korea about the trade agreement.  The agreement does what it should do but I know math isn't his strong point so let me explain something.

We have the worlds largest economy and a population that is quite a bit larger than South Korea's.  If a South Korean company sells a product to every American and a American company sell a product to every South Korean, they sell more products since there are more Americans.  For them to buy as much from us as we do from them, they would have to buy a lot more each.

Also, since Americans have more disposable income each Korean would have to spend more relatively.

So far in 2017 we have imported $53 billion from South Korea and exported $36 billion.  They have a population of 50 million and ours is over 300 million.  They are buying more per capita of our goods than we are of theirs.

Its also a much larger percentage of their GDP.

There are other dynamics involved, but if each South Korean spent the same amount on US goods as we do on South Korean goods, sort of what the dotard was saying, the deficit would be much worse.

Its simple math really.

Where Our nose Begins

There is a quote about freedom that states the freedom to swing your arm stops where my nose begins.

I think most of us accept this as comon sense but of course lots of things impact others in a less clear way.

Consider agriculture.

With a few exceptions, modern agriculture is based on the use of ever more sophisticated seeds and weed killers to keep production high and cheap.

The image of the family farmer tending his modest acreage is iconic but generally not very realistic.

We have vast acres dedicated to single crops in wide swaths leading to a number of challenges, not at all related to most peoples image of farmers.

They need to plant modified seeds that are patented or copywrited by a company like Monsanto.  They then need to protect those plants by using sophisticated pesticides which in many cases are designed to be used on plants genetically modified to resist them.

This of course leads to a dependency where most farmers are becoming more and more dependent on science to raise crops.

Now I'm not one who opposes genetically modified crops in general, but I'm not sure this dependency is going to end well.

There is an issue this year in the soybean harvest based on a new pesticide resistant soybean and the pesticide it is resistant to.  The pesticide seems to have migrated to other fields.

Of course this devastates the other crops and trees.

Now the EPA is supposed to regulate these issues but it has always been pretty reliant on the industries it regulates for data.  As we see a new push to reduce regulations and get products to market we are likely to see more and more mistakes happen.

Of course the FDA is going the same way, and in that case the nose is one us, not the soybeans.

Water, Water Everywhere

Pretty much an apt description right now for Houston and likely for the future of a lot of low lying areas if we don't decide to do something about rising sea levels.

Let me ask a simple question.  Even if you don't believe that spewing trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere impacts the climate, can it be a good thing?

The only argument for it is that if we make companies clean up their emissions or require cars to reduce emission it will make us non-competitive with the rest of the world.

The fallacy there is that the rest of the world has agreed to do something about it and we have backed out of the deal.

Now, if you actually believe stuff the president says, I guess you are convinced that all the facts and data that are so widely available are fake and provided by someone with a desire to harm this country.

Of course that does require you to believe that all the American scientists are in fact traitors who serve some evil purpose, probably why they stayed in school in the first place.

There is a popular fantasy TV show that has as some of its main characters manipulative sinister characters who will do anything for power.

Now the only difference between that and real life is that we get to see the lying and manipulation so we know who they are.

In real life, they usually don't show us the behind the scenes look to help us.  Of course some of it is coming out in the current Russian investigations but where that leads is yet to be determined.

Its not really complex though, just follow the money.

If a business wants to make more money they donate to the right people, help them get elected and the regulations get lifted.

Simple enough?

Yes they have to breathe the same air as the rest of us and live on the same planet but being wealthy affords plenty of opportunity to keep your feet dry as the water rises.

Unless of course you are on the French Riviera at the time.

Paris in Springtime

I've never been to Paris, although its on my bucket list, but it supposedly beautiful in the Spring.

Now in order to keep it that way the French as well as almost every other country in the UN signed a climate agreement to reduce carbon emissions.

Now the science behind climate change is as conclusive as scientific research can be, we have worldwide data and centuries, even millennia of comparisons using ice cores.

However there are some who still deny it just as some still deny evolution or natural selection.

We seem to have more of them in this country then elsewhere, although they may just get more credibility here.

Ice is melting, waters are rising and if you live in a low lying area, you may want to sell your house instead of leaving it to your children.  It seems, and I believe this is predictable, that it is happening faster than the average prediction.

Science isn't a radical thing and projections and conclusions almost always veer to the conservative estimate, since that is the least disputable position.  Yes we always have those who point out, what in fact I am pointing out, the worst case scenario, but while a range might be shown in the data the projections will not be at the extremes.

Now, warming feeds on itself because as ice melts more areas that warm faster get exposed. 

It is already too late to prevent a certain amount of warming and melt (rising oceans) and the impact of the fresh water on critical currents is not clear, but we need to try to slow, stop and then reverse what is happening.

We're not saving polar bear habitat, we're trying to save human habitat.

Now humanity will move to higher ground and possibly adjust, but it will be an incredibly expensive exercise for no real reason. 

Also, higher temperatures means more energy and storms will be more intense as well as more frequent.

Lets not leave Paris, we need it.

Saturday among the Bushes

I guess we can rename hide and seek to among and seek now to stay up with the recent White House speak.

People roll their eyes at you because you are talking nonsense.  I believe you actually know you are and want to practice deflection by raising sexism.

Millions of people don't vote illegally in this country, millions are legally prevented from voting by republican bigots.

What is wrong with being considerate in how you talk and act?  I don't consider that political correctness, I consider it common courtesy.

Free trade increases global efficiency and results in lower prices for everyone.  If you work for an inefficient enterprise, its not the best thing for you.

You can't really have a debate with someone who simply isn't willing to use actual facts. 

Things like climate change are not in question.  Some aspects of the theory are still debatable, but not the fundamental fact of it.

The most scary thing is that it is possible that humanity is out of control.  Nature has a way of correcting that sort of thing, and it's usually not pretty.

One of the things coming out in many studies is that a lot of Americans think their children will do worse than they did.  Maybe, but isn't it the parents job to prepare their children to live good lives?

So many people who complain about food stamps are receiving much bigger government subsidies which they fell they deserve for some reason.  Price supports for agriculture or small business incentives are paid for by us taxpayers too.

Charitable tax deductions allow people to support causes many of us don't like at our expense.  If you want to support discriminatory causes do it on your own dime.

Environmental Regulations

There is a strong antigovernment movement in the country today which is convinced that Government is the problem.

This exists because at times Government regulations create certain requirements that slow people down or even prevent them from doing what they want.  Now, of course each person feels that whatever they want to do is good and anything in his way is bad, so after such an experience you are likely to feel there is too much Government.

Now take a regulation that prevents water pollution by restricting what you can dump into a stream on your property.  Well the stream is on your property and now you have restrictions on what products you can use.  How dare they! We were using these products for years and the stream is just fine!

Of course the stream might carry the contamination into a river and then into a lake where people go to fish and swim.  Measurements downstream show increased levels of cancer causing or other dangerous pollutants, which are being passed on to sports fishermen or swimmers.

Now the regulation restricts a few people to benefit the many.  However, the many frequently are not aware of what is being done, but the few certainly are.

Government reacts to noise, the squeaky wheel syndrome.  So the few complain and the many stay quiet, at least until the lake is shut down because its contaminated.

Its clear, at least for now, that since the worst period of pollution we have cleaner air and water, although not perfect.  Rivers that were actually dangerous are now full of fish and the reason for this is environmental protection.

It does at time inconvenience the few but we all have a better life because of it.

Going back to a more polluted past is not making anything great again.

The Future Part 7

The issue of environmental disaster is simply too dangerous to ignore as a species.  When one of the candidates and many Americans refuse to accept that we are playing with our survival as a species, it is troubling.

The danger of a bomb going off and killing you from a terrorist attack is a danger, not very likely in comparison to other immediate dangers, but something that gets a lot of attention.  But if you consider the devastation of any war we have seen, as terrible as it may have been,destroying the environment and climate will be worse.

It is happening now and it can be difficult to distinguish between what would be normal weather and what is climate change, but as we see storms of the century almost every year and the average force of hurricanes and tornadoes increases along with the earth's temperature it become a strong correlation.

The data is so very clear and the danger so real that it is hard to find any reputable scientist who doesn't agree.  The few that do, normally employed by energy companies, usually try to argue that these are natural changes, not caused by human activity. They can't really dispute the data but they argue the cause is different.  The simple point is that spewing dangerous pollutants and carbon into the air we breath is definitely not a beneficial thing.

We need to make this a cost of production and we need to impose it on all products, not just ones produced in this country.  Since any tax imposed on sales is regressive by nature, we should offset the regressiveness of it in other taxes or credits, but making pollution a cost of production will help with the deficit and make industry find creative solutions.

There is no better motivator than an economic one.

Of course any such action will meet resistance in our current political climate and what is probably the biggest challenge we face for the future is making the American public more aware.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, we have many sites spreading misinformation.  I'm not talking about opinions, but actual lies.  It may be the biggest challenge we have, It isn't an easy thing to fix.

I like to think that we are providing our children the skills they need to determine fact from fiction, but I am afraid that it isn't so.  So ultimately, creating an informed citizenry able to determine what is true vs what is false and forming an informed opinion is the biggest challenge we have.

We see to opposition to the common core efforts which ultimately were designed to deliver needed skills but too many in our society don't want an informed citizenry.

So the future is our children whom we need to protect from us and educate to make informed decisions.

The Future Part 6

This has primarily been about the national debt and what are our options.  I should note that economic issues while potentially devastating are ultimately self resolving, one way or the other.  In the very worst case, a nation that defaults and leaves our seniors and others without the Government benefits they earned, we will survive.

However, the national debt in and of itself is certainly manageable.  We do control our currency so in a worst case scenario we can devalue the debt, and survive.  However, by increasing certain taxes and maybe removing the income cap on social security with continued spending reductions we can manage it until the demographics improve.

Now the area that is much more dangerous to America and the world as a whole is the environment.  There is no easy recovery from an environmental disaster.  We don't really have any way to determine certain historical events but I believe it is reasonable to argue that the pollution and environmental damage we have done has resulted in a significant amount of human pain and death already.

Of course some diseases are possibly simply related to the increased life span of humans while others are clearly linked to specific things like tobacco, but it is hare to imagine that the noxious pollutants dumped into our atmosphere,ground and water have not had a debilitating impact on us.

The point is that the Earth will survive us, the question is whether we will survive us?

We have seen more attention recently to climate change and the excess carbon we are releasing.  This is easily demonstrated via science and is really irrefutable.  To deny it is simple ridiculous, and the impact of the carbon in the atmosphere is both predictable and observable.

The ability of the earth to scrub this carbon our is reduced as we eliminate rain forests saturate our oceans.  The scenario is clear that as the ice on land masses melts, it will increase ocean levels.  It will also create changes in ocean currents based on the interaction between the fresh ice melt and the saltier ocean.

Yes some habitats will be destroyed, coastlines will be flooded, extreme weather will increase and populations will be disrupted.  We may ultimately adjust to these changes but the cost in resources and misery will be great.

It is ultimately reversible but we can't simply let that happen, because we are not guaranteed to survive it.

(to be continued)

Growth

Read a blog today that argued that there will be no real growth in the California economy for many years to come and by extension none in the US economy as a whole.

The argument centers around the fact that our two primary post war growth industries, housing and automobiles, are both unlikely to show any growth, and without that stimulus, overall growth will be stagnant. I agree that we need to adjust expectations in both of those industries, but think that it will take years to absorb excess housing, unless we simply raze much of it and reuse the land to grow biomass for bio fuels, I believe that the automotive industry has an opportunity to grow as we replace our current fossil based vehicles with vehicles that run on electricity, bio diesel or natural gas. In addition, the development of infrastructure to supply that fuel and delivery systems hold tremendous potential.

Further, while we have enough housing stock, I believe there is ample opportunity to incentivize energy remodeling that will sustain much of the construction industry. Use of solar panels to reduce electricity needs, better insulation, more efficient appliances and conversion of heating systems to more efficient ones can create jobs.

This growth is an offshoot of the need to develop a renewable energy imperative in this country and the development of industries to make it happen. Solar, wind and conversion of bio mass and/or coal into clean alternatives will reduce our balance of payment problems and create a tremendous number of jobs.

There isn't really a choice about this change in the long run, but if we continue to send wealth offshore only so we can borrow it back because it has a short term cost advantage, we, as a nation are being short sighted. The Government can influence this by reforming the way we collect taxes and while continuing to promote world trade, make sure American industries are not put at a disadvantage.

For those who see gloom and doom because of some of our current problems, that were exacerbated by those who failed to follow up on the initiatives from the 1970s, realize that this country has tremendous potential still and simply needs to reform our energy and tax profile to realize it.

Time to get started.

Climate bill?

The House today narrowly passed the Climate Bill. This bill is basically an attempt to reduce environmental pollution by putting a cap on hot house gas emissions and taxing anyone who exceeds the limits. Ultimately any costs will be passed on the the American taxpayer although it includes some provisions designed to help lo income consumers.

There is tremendous opposition to this bill and its chances in the Senate are far from certain. The question has to be whether the cost to reduce carbon emissions is less that the cost of buying carbon credits. Effectively, if you can reduce your emissions, you get a cap credit that you can sell. Like everything else some will benefit and some won't. It also raises the question as to whether it will have a net impact of more jobs or less jobs. As constituted it seems to do a number of things that I don't think are beneficial for the economy.

First, it penalizes coal, one of our greatest resources. Now I understand that we would like to reduce hot house gas emissions and coal is potentially the worst offender, but I think the legislation should have been drafted to help reduce reliance on foreign oil to a greater extent. If you really would like a cleaner energy future, the best way to go would be to tax foreign oil and use that money to subsidize conversion of electric plants to natural gas, and using coal to produce synthetic oil. Ultimately we do need to move to renewable energy and the policies should be geared that way, but it is pretty unlikely that wind and solar will ever be at a stage where they do not need a backup generating capacity for, well, cloudy or calm days.

Second, it has a ton of concessions designed to win votes that twist the bill into a bit of a political nightmare. Some of these aren't even fully disclosed right now. All bills like this have compromises but the desire to pass this was so intense and its chances so slim that the concessions reached epic proportions.

It is a sad thing in this country that we can't achieve a meeting of the minds on what seem fairly clear and common issues. The great majority of Americans would like to reduce environmental contamination and would like to reduce reliance on foreign oil. I don't have confidence that this bill does either of those things very well and is therefore flawed from the outset. However, instead of taking the time to craft a bill that accomplishes those two objectives, with a clear additional objective of creating a renewable energy growth industry in this country, politicians tie themselves up a belief that if they don't accomplish something right now, they may never be able to.

When some of our leading environmental groups oppose the bill, you have to believe it has real problems, lets hope it fails and we rethink the approach.

Renewable resources

Resources come in two varieties, renewable and non-renewable. Non-renewable resources have a limit, i.e. amount of oil that actually exists. Renewable resources on the other hand can continue to support us for an indefinite period if not destroyed in some way.

If you accept that basic premise, then you should also accept that moving from non-renewable resources to renewable resources is ultimately inevitable. So, power generated via oil, gas and coal will have to be replaced at some time in the future by solar, wind and hydro. The only real question is the time frame.

As long as non-renewable sources of energy are cheap it does not make economic sense to convert. Of course as the cost of non-renewable energy increases and the cost of renewable energy decreases, there will come a point when it does make economic sense.

The Government can, as a matter of social policy, influence that outcome. By increasing taxes on non-renewable resources and providing tax credits for renewable ones, the economic balance can be changed. This could potentially be revenue neutral if the credits were financed by the taxes on non-renewable energy, but the current infrastructure is heavily reliant on non-renewable energy and it would drive that cost up.

So, lets say the Government increased taxes on gasoline to a level such as $4 a gallon and utilized that revenue to provide tax credits for electric car usage. Would this be effective? I think it would be, but a bigger question may be what would be the impact on the economy?

The increased cost would be experienced almost immediately and the conversion process would take time. So using another example, if the price of home heating oil was increased but tax credits were made available for solar alternatives, it would increase cost to the average consumer. Of course the money generated would create jobs and as the renewable energy industry became more efficient costs should come down, and as an added bonus, the trade deficit could very well be reduced.

So the real question is, would the increased economic activity based on conversion from non-renewable to renewable outweigh the decrease in economic activity based on increased cost for energy in the short term?

I think it can be demonstrated that at some point the increased economic activity would more than offset the cost impact, especially as the cost of renewable energy decreased and the use of non-renewable energy decreased. How long would it take?

When you consider the slack in our current economy, in almost all sectors, the increased employment in something as simple as installing solar panels on houses would likely have a fairly immediate impact. Manufacture and installation would be a growth industry for a long time. Similarly, if the car manufacturers can retool quickly, the demand for electric and/or hybrid cars will boost the auto industry. Other areas may very well take a longer time. Many solar and wind projects get delayed by local issues. It may very well take a significant public affairs campaign to overcome some of this, but I do believe that most Americans will get on board if there is a consistent public message about how this reduces dependency on foreign oil and is good for the environment.

Generally, I believe the downward impact would be quickly offset by the increase economic activity.

Just something to think about.