Heating costs, thread continuation and thoughts:

[dug]

What this comes down to is freedom versus gov't control.

I don't think so. I certainly never suggested any form of government control, though I wouldn't object to some sort of government supported incentive.

I'll side with freedom every time.

Me too! An elusive side to locate however.

Almost 7 billion people on Earth a myth (conspiracy theory?) propagated by top Eugenicists?  Does the sun not rise in the East? I have only been breathing air for not quite half a century and have seen the population more than double with my own eyes. 

I must confess I did not know of Margaret Sanger but a quick Wikipedia search revealed her to be somewhat of a visionary in my opinion, though I suppose that may ruffle a few feathers. A touchy subject where only fools  ( ) will tread. I'm not sure what she has to do with the "overpopulation myth" and I'm confused as to whether you are for or agin her but I'll assume that you are for, because she was on the side of freedom. *Disclaimer! I only gleaned information from a 1 page biography so I am not fully endorsing, nor condemning her views.


I was referring to the Wal-Mart economy in a little broader terms, and we are all entrenched in it and have little to say in the matter, it will just have to play itself out IMO.

I'm sorry if I side-railed this thread, I really didn't mean to. It's just that the discussion of the energy problem usually revolves around how to get more, or how to use less. I was only trying to suggest an honest alternative that could cut demand, a pointless endeavor I realize- in more ways than one.

[ScottA]

The population issue is a matter of opinion. Who can say with any certainty how many is too many? Maybe too many living in one place but there are other places with very few. I once read that the entire population of the world could fit in an area the size of Texas and everyone could have an average size house with a yard. I don't think that's too far fetched. The real issue is efficency. Our current system encourages waste at every level. Add to this the issue of hording of land and resources by the wealthy and the governments and there's not enough to go around...or is there? The US government has gone out of it's way over the last 50 years to kill farming, kill oil drilling, kill manufaturing, kill lumbering, kill small business...the list goes on and on. Not only that they pay people not to work and pay to keep kids out of the workforce. If there is such a shortage of everything why are they trying to stop people from producing? Maybe it's because there is no shortage other than the one they are trying to create.

[Squirl]

BTW Texas has  171,904,640 acres. Divided by 7,000,000,000 people in the world.  This would be a 1069 square feet per person including deserts and land underwater.

[MountainDon]

BTW Texas has  171,904,640 acres. Divided by 7,000,000,000 people in the world.  This would be a 1069 square feet per person including deserts and land underwater.

Thanks for the math lesson and the lesson in reality. Maybe we'd all fit into Texas if the world was not overpopulated.

Thanks. I did Goggle Margaret Sanger. Seems to me I had heard of her before.  I found this link... http://feministsforchoice.com/was-margaret-sanger-a-racist.htm.

Unlike most eugenicists, Margaret Sanger did not advocate for birth control because she felt that certain groups of women should have babies, while others should not. Sanger believed that birth control should be available to all women, particularly those who were poor, because limiting their number of children would help mothers provide a better quality of life for their families, especially when resources were limited. Sanger believed that reproductive decisions should be made by the individual woman, and not on a social or cultural basis, and she consistently argued against the racialized application of eugenics principals. Margaret Sanger eventually abandoned the eugenics movement, and her reasoning is very clear from a statement that she made in 1919:

Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that is is her right, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother . . . Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment. (Source: The Birth Control Review, February 1919)

Seems to me she was a smart woman.

Of course if birth control means preventing conception as well as the right to abortions that can disturb some people and is another topic.

[dug]

Scott you are right in that optimal population is a matter of opinion. It's already way too crowded for my tastes but there are others who feel completely vulnerable without another human being within shouting distance. I disagree that there are places that have to few humans, at least they are very rare. There is a big difference between how many sardines you can fit in a can and how much space a sardine needs to survive without artificial aid.

Most every state west of the Mississippi is severely beyond that land's natural carrying capacity, surviving only by means of ancient water deposits and stealing the rest from other sources. Plans have been introduced to pipe water from the Yukon or the Mississippi river when the time comes necessary, consuming an unfathomable amount of power. Is this a viable appropriation of our resources? Sure, I guess it would "create" jobs but I see that kind of like printing money. LA and Las Vegas are as artificial as astroturf.

I am not a hermit, I actually like people, at least some people, but why is it necessary to have so many of them? Why not leave some room for other things- birds, lizards, deer, rabbit, redwoods, mountain lions, coatimundi, javelina, all need, and I feel deserve space and water to exist. I guess we could survive without some of them, but I'd rather not. And how many links can we remove from the chain before disaster results? To those who think we are isolated from the natural world- try removing a single species, plankton, and see how we get along.

If the population has doubled in my lifetime alone what is to indicate that that trend will stop? ScottA may be right, and we have plenty enough of every needed resource right now but I think everyone would have to admit there has to be some end. More and more humans exponentially consuming a finite amount of resources  can not continue infinitely. There is most certainly an edge to the cliff, and I don't see the harm in starting to apply the brakes now until waiting until we are careening over it.

I'm a little weird, I admit that, but its hard for me to understand why that is such a controversial concept.   

[Shawn B]

You guys miss Scotts point. So it would take Texas and New Mexico to hold the worlds population. That would leave the rest of the world for energy, food, resources, etc. As was pointed out already, the Earth will take care of human populations at some point. Probably with disease and sickness, think Middle Ages. Also keep in mind societal resets like the fall of the Roman Empire, which led to the Dark Ages. This caused at least a 500 year setback in technology.

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm

Hitler was a student of American eugenics, It lead to his "final solution" problem:

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/02/nazis-murder-of-jews-communists-and.html

Eugenics merge with Environmentalism:

http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=25263&comments=20

IBM and the Holocaust:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfevjFskGJA

[archimedes]

 

[MountainDon]

I think Shawn could start a thread on eugenics and overpopulation, etc. if he wishes to pursue that topic. I don't see the relevance to anything in this thread. It grew out of dug's mention of overpopulation and by his own words he did not mean government action as in China. We've gone so far astray on this topic already. Sometimes it would be nice to not wander so far afield.

That's just an opinion, a suggestion; has no legal or moral bearing.

[ScottA]

I'm not against having less people, I'm against having some bureaucrat get to decide which of us are the too many.

[Sassy]

Biofuels - advantages/disadvantages   http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-true-cost-of-corn-ethanol/  

Thousands of small family farms have gone out of business in the US.  I have many relatives in Nebraska who have had to sell their family farms due to the underhanded practices of many banks.  There is a major on-going lawsuit still pending by countless farmers who lost their land - I'll get the info from my cousin as I can't recall the class action name.

Big corporate farms have taken over who do not care what pesticides, genetically modified, hormone pumped up plants & animals they produce as long as the bottom line is profits.  We now have cloned meat - approved by the FDA  http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-15/health/fda.cloning_1_meat-and-milk-clone-free-center-of-food-safety?_s=PM:HEALTH   Oh, it is SAFE!  Sure it is, how long have they done studies on the human population to prove that it is safe?    http://www.livescience.com/2182-cloned-milk-meat-beef.html

When I fly I see vast areas of open land.  Yes, there is good land & poor land for farming etc.  But there is a lot of open land.  As Scott said, there's a vast amount of land that the Federal gov't now owns  http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/914109-how-much-land-does-the-federal-government-own  


Don, did you watch this video that directly quotes Margaret Sanger's writings?  I think you should, as what you posted has been greatly whitewashed.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yhs-avg&type=yahoo_avg_hs2-tb-web_us&p=You+Tube+-+Margaret+Sanger

Here's a link to the fertility rates around the world - looks like the highest growth in populations is in 3rd world countries & Muslim nations.  A lot of the growth in the US & Europe is from immigration.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

[Native_NM]

Thoughtful response and interesting numbers.    I,  of course disagree  .  There are several errors in logic and economic basics that you have fatally overlooked.

Don't really have time at the moment to full reply.  But a couple of quick points.

1)  How can a gas tax that only affects (by your numbers) 25% of the energy consumption market have the type of effect on consumption that it necessary?  I'll answer that for you - it can't

If the poorer segment is taxed $1.00 a gallon, they will drive less.  The elasticity for poor people is different than rich people.  With the proposed redistribution plan proposed by carbontax.org, the poorer segment would not have an incentive to reduce demand.  Tax everyone a buck, and demand will fall for everyone except the wealthy.  There are more poor and middle class people than rich people, so more than 25% of the total demand would be impacted.  Much more.   I'm middle class by the way.

[Native_NM]

I'm not against having less people, I'm against having some bureaucrat get to decide which of us are the too many.

I agree.

[archimedes]

If the poorer segment is taxed $1.00 a gallon, they will drive less.  The elasticity for poor people is different than rich people.  With the proposed redistribution plan proposed by carbontax.org, the poorer segment would not have an incentive to reduce demand.  Tax everyone a buck, and demand will fall for everyone except the wealthy.  There are more poor and middle class people than rich people, so more than 25% of the total demand would be impacted.  Much more.   I'm middle class by the way.

Your math is wrong, again.

Native_NM said;    "Americans used 137.8 billion gallons of gas in 2009, which represents about 25% of all greenhouse gases."

Even if all middle and lower income people stopped driving entirely it would only affect the total greenhouse gas number by some number less than 25%.  Since the part all greenhouse gas production from gasoline is only 25% of the whole pie.  Right.  Simple mathematics.  Maybe you're not following me.

You agree,  that greenhouse gases should be limited.  So think of greenhouse gases as a pie.  So we need to figure out a way to get rid of that pie.  Your plan only addresses 25% of the pie,  my plan addresses all 100% (all greenhouse fuels not only gasoline).  If you want to create a plan that ideally gets rid of the whole pie (theoretically) why would you devise a plan that only attacks 25% of the problem - which is what a gas tax does.

That's like putting only 25% of your footings below the frost line.  Makes no sense.

Again,  I think you see some social agenda that,  in my opinion ,  doesn't exist.  My opinion is based solely on economics.

Raise the price and people will definately use less.  Especially people of lesser financial means.  It's basic economic 101.  

What you do with the proceeds of the tax has no bearing whatsoever on the effectiveness of the tax in reducing carbon consumption.  Use it for deficit reduction,  to reduce the income or FICA tax,  rebate it, whatever,  it doesn't matter.

Don't let political bias trump sound economic policy.

[ScottA]

I'd be willing to bet that for most people the top use of the gas they buy is to get to and from work. Driving around for fun is probly only a small part of their total fuel use. So you add a $1 a gallon to gas to lower demand. It won't work. You may get them to reduce a portion of their fun time driving but the other uses won't change. Also lets not forget how much gas business uses for operating trucks and I'm not just talking about semi trucks either. Look around the next time you are in the city at all the verious service trucks for plumbers, electritions, delivery etc. Who do you think will pay the $1 tax for them? You will. 

[Native_NM]

Even if all middle and lower income people stopped driving entirely it would only affect the total greenhouse gas number by some number less than 25%.  Since the part all greenhouse gas production from gasoline is only 25% of the whole pie.  Right.  Simple mathematics.  Maybe you're not following me.

You agree,  that greenhouse gases should be limited.  So think of greenhouse gases as a pie.  So we need to figure out a way to get rid of that pie.  Your plan only addresses 25% of the pie,  my plan addresses all 100% (all greenhouse fuels not only gasoline).  If you want to create a plan that ideally gets rid of the whole pie (theoretically) why would you devise a plan that only attacks 25% of the problem - which is what a gas tax does.

I was speaking in the context of gasoline consumption only.  Electricity generation accounts for 40% of fossil-based CO2 output.  If you want to talk math, CO2 is only about 10% of total greenhouse gasses.  Water vapor exceeds CO2 by a factor of 5 to 7.  The Icelandic volcano that erupted last year spit out about the same CO2 as all man-made fossile fuels combined.  That means at least half of all CO2 is not man-made.  By your "mathadology", fossil-based CO2 is 1/2 of 10% of CO2 gasses, and gasoline is 1/4 of that.  Why bother?  If all humans suddenly died, total greenhouse gasses would reduce by about 5%.  Agreed?

[archimedes]

You know,  you're right. 

I  won't  can't argue with logic like that.   

[Native_NM]

You know,  you're right. 

I  won't  can't argue with logic like that.   

Human's impact the environment, but so does every species.   The earth was here before us, and most likely will be here after us.

[Don_P]

Pre fossil fuel I believe the carrying capacity of the planet never exceeded 1 billion humans and it wasn't because we lacked the opportunity to breed. We are living on stored rather than current sunlight presently and are blowing through that stored energy at an ever increasing clip. I believe something like 98% of all species that have ever inhabited this planet are now extinct. I seriously doubt we are somehow an exception. I'm not much for gloom and doom. We have been able to find and use these sources of energy. We have learned and built upon our knowledge generation by generation. We are also the first to be able to percieve oncoming problems in the future. Whether we are smart enough to do anything about it is still up in the air, but we are quite capable, of just about anything we put our minds to.

[dug]

The earth was here before us, and most likely will be here after us.

I doubt many would dispute that.

Human's impact the environment, but so does every species.

Technically true of course, but we are the only species with the tools to do it on a industrial scale.

We are living on stored rather than current sunlight presently and are blowing through that stored energy at an ever increasing clip.

This is the real meat of the matter and the reason why many estimated energy reserves of hundreds or more years is either propaganda, delusion, denial, mind dulling contrails, or some combination of thereof. Exponential growth=exponential energy consumption. A little math proves indisputably that unless growth is checked, no amount of fossils we dig up will do anything but slightly prolong our addiction to them.

I agree with DonP that we possess the intelligence to solve the problem, but I wonder if we possess the wisdom.

[archimedes]

When you consider the enormous profit motive in keeping the current energy situation exactly the same,  it's no wonder that nothing ever changes.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!   -  Upton Sinclair

[Native_NM]

Interesting piece on the news about how the recent gas prices are affecting travel.  One family said if gas goes up to $4.00 they would cancel their summer vacation to Disneyland.  Their three kids were really looking forward to the trip, and they were hoping prices didn't go too much higher. 

A family of five driving to Disney will probably spend $5 grand easy in a week.  If they can't afford the extra $150 or so in gas, they probably shouldn't be going in the first place. 

[Squirl]

Interesting piece on the news about how the recent gas prices are affecting travel.  One family said if gas goes up to $4.00 they would cancel their summer vacation to Disneyland.  Their three kids were really looking forward to the trip, and they were hoping prices didn't go too much higher. 

A family of five driving to Disney will probably spend $5 grand easy in a week.  If they can't afford the extra $150 or so in gas, they probably shouldn't be going in the first place. 

Yes, but if they are used to spending $100 a week in gas commuting and now they are spending $130, that is an extra $1560 a year in gas.  That can eat up much of the money for a yearly vacation.

[archimedes]

An increase in the price of oil causes the price of virtually everything to go up ,  not just gasoline.

Because our political system is crippled by political extremism,  we allow other countries to control our destiny.  Which the oil companies,  and oil dictators,  like just fine.

No rational energy policy in the US,  spells troubled times for us ahead.

The actual solutions are quite simple.  Getting the political system to work well enough to implement them is another story.

[Native_NM]

An increase in the price of oil causes the price of virtually everything to go up ,  not just gasoline.

Because our political system is crippled by political extremism,  we allow other countries to control our destiny.  Which the oil companies,  and oil dictators,  like just fine.

No rational energy policy in the US,  spells troubled times for us ahead.

The actual solutions are quite simple.  Getting the political system to work well enough to implement them is another story.

Since the US has enough energy resources within its own borders to be energy independent right now, some might argue that we are in charge of our own destiny.  We do have an energy policy: use their cheap resources first.  This is well documented. 

We choose to import oil because it is cheap and cleaner than doing the dirty work in our own backyard.  I could grow my families food at my place;  I have the room and the knowledge.  It is frankly cheaper and easier to buy it at the grocery store.  We import food because of cheap Mexican or South American labor and economies of scale.  That and the fact that they don't have to worry about the EPA and other regulations like OSHA and DOL.  At the point that it is cheaper to "drill baby, drill", we will be energy independent.  Ironically, the environmentalists will long for the good old days of cheap Saudi crude.

[ScottA]

And it many cases it's cheaper and easier because our own government drove up the cost of doing things ourselves thus putting millions of Americans out of a job. Great plan.