COMMENTS: 45
Global Denial
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Hurricane Katrina headlines via email.
The Hurricane Katrina disaster is also a curtain-raiser for the largest-ever challenge to public planning: the consequences of global warming. If the present complacency continues, we will see more flooding, more breakdown of democratic civil order, more loss of human life and dignity, and more vivid divisions between rich and poor.
The parallel with Iraq is worth a moment's further reflection. In spring of 2002, in anticipation of the invasion of Iraq, the State Department consulted with about 200 leaders of Iraqi civil society -- lawyers, engineers, businesspeople, and others, all of whom detested Saddam Hussein. The group warned Thomas Warrick, then a State Department adviser, that absent a well-conceived and carefully executed post-invasion plan, chaos would ensue, nullifying any stability the Americans hoped to establish.
With Warrick's guidance, the group worked out strategies to facilitate the least disruptive transition possible. When the State Department presented the plan to the White House, it was informed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the president wanted no such plan. The Iraqis, according to the White House, would be so grateful to their liberators for the overthrow of the hated Hussein regime that they would establish their own democratic order and reconstruction program. Essentially, the State Department officials were told to take their plan and shove it.
Failing to Plan, Unwilling to Budget
Our latest national tragedy has been widely predicted for decades. With even a modest degree of planning, its impacts could have been drastically minimized. For years the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has warned that New Orleans could not withstand anything more than a relatively weak (Category 3) hurricane. Ten years ago, when an intense rainstorm killed six people in the city, the corps asked Congress to provide the $430 million it had authorized to shore up levees and pumping stations. Little of that money ever materialized.
Last year, The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune reported that the Corps of Engineers had determined that the Bush administration was spending less than 20 percent of what was needed to complete the fortiï¬cation of the city's levees. While the massive destruction of Katrina left Americans in shock, it should have been no surprise to the federal government. In 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency cited a hurricane strike on New Orleans as one of the three most likely U.S. disasters. Nevertheless, by 2004 the Bush administration had cut funding to the corps' New Orleans district by more than 80 percent, as Sidney Blumenthal reported in a recent Salon article.
Earlier this year, the Louisiana congressional delegation got Congress to provide about $60 million for flood protection for the city. But the Bush administration reduced that ï¬gure to $10.4 million, according to Newhouse News Service.
While the Bush administration was cutting funding to strengthen protective dikes and levees, the state's bipartisan congressional delegation was also working to secure money for the restoration of its coastal wetlands to buffer the impacts of storm surges. Louisiana officials estimated this effort could cost $14 billion, but the lawmakers managed to secure only a tiny fraction -- $570 million over four years, according to The Times-Picayune. The requested multiyear, $14 billion, appropriation was all but erased from the administration's energy bill. So in order to save in the short term for disaster prevention, the administration's lack of planning has yielded what will likely top $100 billion in damages -- and most of it uninsured.
The Worst is Not Behind Us
Ominously, the most massive casualty of the Bush administration's studied aversion to planning still lies in the future. New Orleans -- like the Netherlands, south Florida, coastal Bangladesh, and other low-lying population centers around the world -- is especially vulnerable to hurricanes, intense storms, and sea surges. In contrast to New Orleans, the Dutch have created an elaborate system of canals, dikes, seawalls, and pumps to protect the Netherlands from extreme flooding. To the Dutch -- and to most of the rest of the world -- the increasing likelihood of devastating natural events constitutes an irrefutable mandate for planning.
Sea levels have been rising twice as quickly over the last 10 years as they were during the previous century, according to recent measurements by NASA satellites. That rise is propelled more or less equally by a steady infusion of water from melting glaciers and icecaps and by the thermal expansion of the oceans themselves (as water heats, it expands).
All of this is attributable to the rising levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, which catches heat traditionally radiated back into space. Those atmospheric carbon levels, which had stabilized at about 280 parts per million (ppm) for 10,000 years, have risen, since the Industrial Revolution, to 380 ppm -- a level this planet has not experienced for at least 420,000 years -- as our burning of coal and oil has accelerated.
As a result, the planet's historical temperature equilibrium has been thrown out of balance, with the earth becoming a net importer of heat. "There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of [global] warming. This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' we have been looking for," said NASA's James Hansen, one author of the "heat balance" study published this spring in the journal Science.
One consequence of the heating of the planet is that tropical storms have become 50-percent more intense over the past 30 years, according to Professor Kerry Emanuel of MIT. That increase is due to ocean warming and the resulting changes in wind patterns. While global warming doesn't increase the number of hurricanes, it makes them markedly stronger as ocean surface temperatures rise, because warming water provides the fuel for the storms.
When Katrina glanced off south Florida, it was a Category 1 storm, with wind speeds of about 70 miles per hour. But when it moved across the superheated Gulf of Mexico, with surface temperatures exceeding 80 degrees Fahrenheit, it swelled into a 170-mile-per-hour megastorm before making landfall east of New Orleans.
Regrettably, President Bush's anti-planning propensity seems immune to the physical changes overtaking the planet. When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listed the potential impacts of climate change in the United States on its Web site in a document known as "The National Assessment on Climate Change," the White House ordered the EPA to remove or alter all references to the dangers of global warming. The president dismissed the meticulously researched document, which took four years to prepare and review, as a frivolous "product of bureaucracy." In fact, it represents the ï¬ndings of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the United Nations in what is the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientiï¬c collaboration in history.
The ï¬ndings of that scientiï¬c body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, gave rise in 1997 to an international plan to help our climate stabilize. The plan, known as the Kyoto Protocol, was signed by then-President Bill Clinton but never ratiï¬ed by the U.S. Senate. In its ï¬rst iteration, the protocol called on the world's industrial nations to curb carbon emissions -- by some 7 percent below 1990 levels -- by 2012. One of Bush's ï¬rst acts as president was to withdraw America from the Kyoto Protocol.
The Fast Track to Hell
In the last few years, it has become overwhelmingly apparent that climate change is accelerating faster than scientists had anticipated even a decade ago. As a result, the delegates to the Kyoto Protocol (which has now been ratiï¬ed by more than 150 nations) are planning to speed up the timetable and ramp up the emissions-reduction goals dramatically -- unless the Bush administration succeeds in scuttling the entire process.
In response to the scientiï¬c consensus ï¬nding that humanity needs to reduce its use of carbon fuels by 70 percent in a very short time, the Netherlands is already implementing a plan to curb emissions by 80 percent in 40 years. Tony Blair has committed Britain to carbon cuts of 60 percent in 50 years. Germany has vowed a 50-percent reduction in 50 years. Earlier this year, French President Jacques Chirac called on the entire industrial world to cut emissions by 75 percent by 2050.
By contrast, the response of the Bush administration has been to take dead aim at the United Nations as the world's coordinating agency on climate change. Shortly after Paul Wolfowitz was installed as director of the World Bank, he declared that the institution would make climate change a priority, promising massive investments in new coal technology. (Coal, with the heaviest carbon concentration of all fuels, is the most potent contributor to global warming of all fossil fuels.)
Following a year of secret negotiations, Bush then announced a pact with Australia, the world's largest coal exporter, and several other countries to develop "clean coal." This purely voluntary agreement not only contradicts the binding goals of the Kyoto Protocol; it also ignores the fact that one cannot clean the carbon out of coal. No matter how much coal is "cleaned," it will continue to fuel the warming of the planet.
Finally, of course, the president appointed as our new ambassador to the United Nations one John Bolton, a diplomat who has been consistently antagonistic to much of the UN's body's work. Because a more aggressive UN-sponsored Kyoto Protocol does not ï¬t the president's preconceived agenda, his strategy boils down to sabotaging the authority of the United Nations in the area of climate change.
To the president, this sounds like a plan. To the rest of us, it seems a fast track to climate hell.
Stay up to date with the latest Hurricane Katrina headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Sep 23, 2005 1:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hey there is now Rita and she is bigger than Katrina
Posted by: Cayenne
» RE: Hey there is now Rita and she is bigger than Katrina
Posted by: ShaSpirit
» Faster by bike?
Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Faster by bike?
Posted by: ShaSpirit
» RE: Hey there is now Rita and she is bigger than Katrina
Posted by: Spyder
» RE: Hey there is now Rita and she is bigger than Katrina
Posted by: ShaSpirit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Colin on Sep 23, 2005 3:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a good point and one worth making. I actually saw some Bush cronies on the news here last night who, thanks to the sheer persistence of newscaster John Snow, admitted that storms have become more powerful over recent years and that the water temperature has also risen. However, he wasn't prepared to admit that this is linked and probably caused by global warming, instead preferring to blame it on cyclical weather patterns. According to the story 98% of hurricane specialists around the world agree that global warming is the problem. The other two percent are predominantly American and work for your government.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The unraveling begins......
Posted by: Michiganman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: churchofone on Sep 23, 2005 4:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sigh.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Failure for some = windfall for others
Posted by: LeonDion
» RE: Failure for some = windfall for others
Posted by: Spot
» RE: Failure for some = windfall for others
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Failure for some = windfall for others
Posted by: h2oaso
» RE: Failure for some = windfall for others
Posted by: crusty
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 23, 2005 8:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About Hurricane Rita, it's odd that it ain't hitting Mexico at all. Maybe God's punishing America for having irresponsible leadership and people sinking in with it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Sep 23, 2005 9:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that "bridges to nowhere" is also an apropos description of our current administration.
Maybe the worst victims of the New Orleans' floods can write Alaska's senators and congressmen and ask for the money back.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, they can't write –– they're dead.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: stoney13
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: Nice to Be Back Johnny, Didja Miss Me???
Posted by: stoney13
» RE: Tricky Dick II
Posted by: ScottP
» RE: Tricky Dick II
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: russianblue
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: memerot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 23, 2005 9:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The story that an occupation plan for Iraq was refused by Rumsfeld comes as no surprise, in light of subsequent events. The Iraq finance minister says $1b of reconstruction funds was siphoned off into private pockets. I can't help wondering how many of those were American pockets. That would sure explain the absence of an orderly plan.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: How did planning and markets become mutually exclusive?
Posted by: johnny-boy2
» 10's of Billions, Corporate free for all
Posted by: Michiganman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: malcolmartin on Sep 23, 2005 10:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Time has seen the United States of America emerge as capitalism’s favorite son and sharpest instrument. During its formative years American capitalism actually encouraged a Civil War victory for anti-slavery forces. Later, in a time of severe crisis called the Great Depression, it saved itself with New Deal reforms and rose up to militarily defeat its fascist European and imperialist Japanese capitalist rivals.
Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 has the US has accelerated toward a failsafe point, a Rubicon of sorts.
There is no turning back now! Unchecked by a revolutionary struggle based on the idea of sharing the world’s resources, capitalism will by its very nature turn the Earth into a giant slave labor camp. Even at that, the system will then stare into the eyes of one of its fatal contradictions. Slaves can not buy the products they produce. A Brave New World? Only for a handful at most.
Capitalisms appetite for profit simply can not be satisfied! For example U.S. oil corporations realized world record profits last year and this year as gasoline prices race past $3.00 a gallon they will increase that profit margin. But unless these entities make even greater profit into the indefinite future they will whither and die. There is only so much technology can boost production or wages can be depressed until a slave system must be created.
Capitalism has now armed itself with doomsday weapons and created an immune system for itself. It influences culture and controls the mass media and education across a growing part of the world, places its servants in seats of political and military power, and creates philosophy and myth to glorify its own existence. Much like the human body’s white blood corpuscles, the capitalist system can call on an army of economists from M.I.T. or the University of Chicago to repel threats to its lifeblood, profits.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» AGREE 10000% Malcolmartin speaks TRUTH!
Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: AGREE 10000% Malcolmartin speaks TRUTH!
Posted by: malcolmartin
» Nietzsche called it 'will to power' and thought it was unavoidable.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PalEBoy on Sep 23, 2005 11:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With gas at $3.10, I noticed twice as many people biking to work. Think what gas at $7 would do. Biking, Carpooling, Public Transit... Much less gas consumption; thus less carbon into the atmosphere, thus a start towards adressing global warming.
The situation in Iraq is, IMO, one the US must be succesful at; or the US will face a much riskier security situation in the future. $$ will be needed to do this; and in taxing gasoline, we're addressing *why* we're there to begin with. Which should lower our long term security risks. Also, by all citizens sharing the burden (via increased gas prices and the lifestyle changes that will impose) of stabiling Iraq, we show our support of our service men&women doing the hard work of stabilizing Iraq.
Finally, radical price swings in gasoline have a disruptive (and random) effect on the US economy. If gas prices go up dramatically and stay up, American ingenuity will figure out a solution to the transportation problem. Until then, there's no incentive to come up with a solution, and the US is hostage to the random swings in price. Government doesn't have to impose a solution; but it does have to provide the right environment for one to be had.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: An Unique Opportunity
Posted by: memerot
» RE: An Unique Opportunity
Posted by: PalEBoy
» RE: An Unique Opportunity
Posted by: PW
» RE: An Unique Opportunity
Posted by: mors
» RE: An Unique Opportunity
Posted by: crusty
» RE: An Unique Opportunity
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhatNow? on Sep 23, 2005 7:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am constantly sickened by people that drive large trucks and SUVs for absolutely no good reason. I was driving a 30+ mpg Toyota truck in 1998 while paying $0.88 a gallon for gas. Even at that time I almost coveted a Toyota Echo because of it's 2000lb curb weight, 115 hp engine and 41/45 EPA mileage rating. What more could I reasonably want? Good performance, fair comfort, good mileage, and good reliability.
Here is an example of what pieces of shit alot of amerikans are:
"First month stats for the GM program (employee discounts) are in, and they show the General netted an overall gain in vehicle sales - cars and trucks together - of nearly 47 percent compared to June 2004.........
Now to the consumer mindset: While GM sales exploded, the boom was all in trucks - and for the purpose of this column, that includes pickups and minivans as wells as SUVs and crossovers. Trucks made up 52.7 percent of the corporate mix before the fire sale. But in June trucks soared to 69.1 percent.......
Big SUVs, which had been stinking up the place, went from zero to hero. Tahoe, up 81.5 percent; TrailBlazer, 57.9 percent; Suburban, 48.3 percent. Over at GMC the news was even more amazing, with the Envoy up 99.3 percent and the Yukon 104.2 percent......."
Rich Ceppos, Autoweek, August 15,2005
And alot of the people that drive this shit are fucking breeders. So they are creating another generation that will likely want these things and behave environmentally irresponsible like their egg and sperm donors.
Unfortunately, I am no longer a white collar worker. I need a truck to carry tools and materials. My truck will get 28+ mpg. Still, fuel costs are hurting me. I can not ride a bike to work. I am not strong enough to carry all that I need. I have thought of a 500cc motorcycle with saddle bags on the sides but even that is impractical.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: We as people
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhatNow? on Sep 23, 2005 7:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I think all paper products and most clothing should be made from hemp. Cotton is one of the crops that requires the most petroleum based chemicals to grow. Paper made from hemp requires much less chemicals to produce than paper made from wood pulp.
Hemp! the plant that can save the world.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: part II (hemp)
Posted by: Basenjis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Sep 23, 2005 1:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hey there is now Rita and she is bigger than Katrina
Posted by: Cayenne
» RE: Hey there is now Rita and she is bigger than Katrina
Posted by: ShaSpirit
» Faster by bike?
Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Faster by bike?
Posted by: ShaSpirit
» RE: Hey there is now Rita and she is bigger than Katrina
Posted by: Spyder
» RE: Hey there is now Rita and she is bigger than Katrina
Posted by: ShaSpirit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Colin on Sep 23, 2005 3:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a good point and one worth making. I actually saw some Bush cronies on the news here last night who, thanks to the sheer persistence of newscaster John Snow, admitted that storms have become more powerful over recent years and that the water temperature has also risen. However, he wasn't prepared to admit that this is linked and probably caused by global warming, instead preferring to blame it on cyclical weather patterns. According to the story 98% of hurricane specialists around the world agree that global warming is the problem. The other two percent are predominantly American and work for your government.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The unraveling begins......
Posted by: Michiganman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: churchofone on Sep 23, 2005 4:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sigh.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Failure for some = windfall for others
Posted by: LeonDion
» RE: Failure for some = windfall for others
Posted by: Spot
» RE: Failure for some = windfall for others
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Failure for some = windfall for others
Posted by: h2oaso
» RE: Failure for some = windfall for others
Posted by: crusty
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 23, 2005 8:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About Hurricane Rita, it's odd that it ain't hitting Mexico at all. Maybe God's punishing America for having irresponsible leadership and people sinking in with it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Sep 23, 2005 9:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that "bridges to nowhere" is also an apropos description of our current administration.
Maybe the worst victims of the New Orleans' floods can write Alaska's senators and congressmen and ask for the money back.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, they can't write –– they're dead.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: stoney13
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: Nice to Be Back Johnny, Didja Miss Me???
Posted by: stoney13
» RE: Tricky Dick II
Posted by: ScottP
» RE: Tricky Dick II
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: russianblue
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: "Porkers In Congress."
Posted by: memerot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 23, 2005 9:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The story that an occupation plan for Iraq was refused by Rumsfeld comes as no surprise, in light of subsequent events. The Iraq finance minister says $1b of reconstruction funds was siphoned off into private pockets. I can't help wondering how many of those were American pockets. That would sure explain the absence of an orderly plan.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: How did planning and markets become mutually exclusive?
Posted by: johnny-boy2
» 10's of Billions, Corporate free for all
Posted by: Michiganman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: malcolmartin on Sep 23, 2005 10:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Time has seen the United States of America emerge as capitalism’s favorite son and sharpest instrument. During its formative years American capitalism actually encouraged a Civil War victory for anti-slavery forces. Later, in a time of severe crisis called the Great Depression, it saved itself with New Deal reforms and rose up to militarily defeat its fascist European and imperialist Japanese capitalist rivals.
Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 has the US has accelerated toward a failsafe point, a Rubicon of sorts.
There is no turning back now! Unchecked by a revolutionary struggle based on the idea of sharing the world’s resources, capitalism will by its very nature turn the Earth into a giant slave labor camp. Even at that, the system will then stare into the eyes of one of its fatal contradictions. Slaves can not buy the products they produce. A Brave New World? Only for a handful at most.
Capitalisms appetite for profit simply can not be satisfied! For example U.S. oil corporations realized world record profits last year and this year as gasoline prices race past $3.00 a gallon they will increase that profit margin. But unless these entities make even greater profit into the indefinite future they will whither and die. There is only so much technology can boost production or wages can be depressed until a slave system must be created.
Capitalism has now armed itself with doomsday weapons and created an immune system for itself. It influences culture and controls the mass media and education across a growing part of the world, places its servants in seats of political and military power, and creates philosophy and myth to glorify its own existence. Much like the human body’s white blood corpuscles, the capitalist system can call on an army of economists from M.I.T. or the University of Chicago to repel threats to its lifeblood, profits.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» AGREE 10000% Malcolmartin speaks TRUTH!
Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: AGREE 10000% Malcolmartin speaks TRUTH!
Posted by: malcolmartin
» Nietzsche called it 'will to power' and thought it was unavoidable.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PalEBoy on Sep 23, 2005 11:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With gas at $3.10, I noticed twice as many people biking to work. Think what gas at $7 would do. Biking, Carpooling, Public Transit... Much less gas consumption; thus less carbon into the atmosphere, thus a start towards adressing global warming.
The situation in Iraq is, IMO, one the US must be succesful at; or the US will face a much riskier security situation in the future. $$ will be needed to do this; and in taxing gasoline, we're addressing *why* we're there to begin with. Which should lower our long term security risks. Also, by all citizens sharing the burden (via increased gas prices and the lifestyle changes that will impose) of stabiling Iraq, we show our support of our service men&women doing the hard work of stabilizing Iraq.
Finally, radical price swings in gasoline have a disruptive (and random) effect on the US economy. If gas prices go up dramatically and stay up, American ingenuity will figure out a solution to the transportation problem. Until then, there's no incentive to come up with a solution, and the US is hostage to the random swings in price. Government doesn't have to impose a solution; but it does have to provide the right environment for one to be had.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: An Unique Opportunity
Posted by: memerot
» RE: An Unique Opportunity
Posted by: PalEBoy
» RE: An Unique Opportunity
Posted by: PW
» RE: An Unique Opportunity
Posted by: mors
» RE: An Unique Opportunity
Posted by: crusty
» RE: An Unique Opportunity
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhatNow? on Sep 23, 2005 7:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am constantly sickened by people that drive large trucks and SUVs for absolutely no good reason. I was driving a 30+ mpg Toyota truck in 1998 while paying $0.88 a gallon for gas. Even at that time I almost coveted a Toyota Echo because of it's 2000lb curb weight, 115 hp engine and 41/45 EPA mileage rating. What more could I reasonably want? Good performance, fair comfort, good mileage, and good reliability.
Here is an example of what pieces of shit alot of amerikans are:
"First month stats for the GM program (employee discounts) are in, and they show the General netted an overall gain in vehicle sales - cars and trucks together - of nearly 47 percent compared to June 2004.........
Now to the consumer mindset: While GM sales exploded, the boom was all in trucks - and for the purpose of this column, that includes pickups and minivans as wells as SUVs and crossovers. Trucks made up 52.7 percent of the corporate mix before the fire sale. But in June trucks soared to 69.1 percent.......
Big SUVs, which had been stinking up the place, went from zero to hero. Tahoe, up 81.5 percent; TrailBlazer, 57.9 percent; Suburban, 48.3 percent. Over at GMC the news was even more amazing, with the Envoy up 99.3 percent and the Yukon 104.2 percent......."
Rich Ceppos, Autoweek, August 15,2005
And alot of the people that drive this shit are fucking breeders. So they are creating another generation that will likely want these things and behave environmentally irresponsible like their egg and sperm donors.
Unfortunately, I am no longer a white collar worker. I need a truck to carry tools and materials. My truck will get 28+ mpg. Still, fuel costs are hurting me. I can not ride a bike to work. I am not strong enough to carry all that I need. I have thought of a 500cc motorcycle with saddle bags on the sides but even that is impractical.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: We as people
Posted by: bornxeyed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhatNow? on Sep 23, 2005 7:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I think all paper products and most clothing should be made from hemp. Cotton is one of the crops that requires the most petroleum based chemicals to grow. Paper made from hemp requires much less chemicals to produce than paper made from wood pulp.
Hemp! the plant that can save the world.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: part II (hemp)
Posted by: Basenjis
No Justice for the African-Americans Targeted by White Vigilantes After the Katrina Flooding
Don't Let Insurers Shirk Their Duty
The GOP Has More to Rebuild Than New Orleans




