I'll take a look and check it out. I agree that time is best spent imagining what a new world that works could look like, given what we're looking at right now…
If China, India, Russia, Japan and the US wanted to become true World Leaders instead of just Military Powers, they would all work together to Champion Solar from Space and then lead the World toward a safe new future. Until we start getting our energy from Solar (of all flavors) and especially from Space we will continue to have Energy Wars and civil strife on Earth. Here are several books that describe how to "save" the Earth from it's nuclear folly:
The High Frontier by Gerard K. O'Neill,
Colonies In Space by A. Heppenheimer.
The Third Industrial Revolution by G. Harry Stine
The Space Enterprise by Philip Robert Harris
Mining the Sky by John S. Lewis
I cringe every time I read that complexity is a major drawback of nuclear energy. When we step back from complexity that we have the know how to handle we are not only stepping back, but moving back.
If you look at the resources we have to produce energy going forward, one resource stands out. If what I’ve read is true, there is enough uranium to supply our energy needs for a thousand years, if used in breeder reactor power plants.
Perhaps most of the voting public would prefer to focus their mental resources on “American Idol” or “Say Yes to the Dress.” However, I believe there are enough people willing to constructively use their talents to allow us to continue to take advantage of nuclear power.
I hope people don’t use their voting influence to vote us into a dark age. I’m not optimistic, but I can hope.
As a side bar, if we want to reduce the cost of nuclear power, and health care for that matter, we need to find a way to get the leagal profession to stop feeding off of those industries.
Again, you seem to like picking starting points that support your view. How about before the initial abuse? Also as far as the great depression, it was largely a result of abuse of out money system during the roaring twenties. You are cherry picking when to start looking at history for your justifications.
Just because we have had years of abuse by and of government, doesn't mean the Libertarian ideals are not valid. In your above scenario, just because property rights of individuals may have been abused in the past does not make it right to continue to abuse them.
I don't believe most Libertarians believe in a sudden stop to the current situation, but it doesn't mean we just throw up our hands and give up.
But a simple model is a good goal to strive towards. We have vastly complicated our lives and our government by continuely increasing complexity. More rules to correct problems caused by previous rules. Perhaps it's time we start reversing the trend. A good start would be the elimination of rules that try to dictate morality and what one chooses to do with ones own body, or how about changes that allow one to choose what money to use, or instigating a massively simplified tax code… The problem as I see it is we have too many people trying to control how other people live. It's the arrogance that is evident in nearly all politicians, that they know best, that they are "smart" and should take control of others lives.
I think we could get down to three simple rules (who needs 10):
- You shall not murder.
- You shall not steal.
- You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Further to the disussion on homes reducing energy consumption wrt solar power, I've just found this…:
Study Finds Green Homes Sell $34,800 Higher in California
If sustainability and environmental responsibility weren’t enough persuasion, then cold hard cash in the form of home resale value may get homeowners to invest in green improvements. A new study finds California homes with green labels sell for $34,800, or nine percent, more than comparable homes without green certifications.
Researchers from UC-Berkley and UCLA examined the data on 1.6 million single family homes sold over the last five years in California.
Interesting points to the study include that residents with green label homes in hotter climates sell at higher prices, which may be indicative of the value of cheaper home cooling systems.
Source: Business Wire
[quote=rhare]But a simple model is a good goal to strive towards. We have vastly complicated our lives and our government by continuely increasing complexity. More rules to correct problems caused by previous rules. Perhaps it's time we start reversing the trend.
[/quote]
I agree with your general sentiment, rhare - things have been made way too complex - the tax code, most laws, to name a couple, often for devious and unproductive reasons. But the quote, supposedly from Einstein, sums it up best: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." I think your three commandments are a great starting point, but end up being too simple in themselves to handle the huge, sneaky and divisive social problems that we actually have to deal with where individual rights & ownership, natural resources, other's rights collide, etc.
Capital tends to be self-consolidatating - (as they say "the rich get richer", "the golden rule: those who have the gold, rule", etc). You may not accept this general premise, and if so, we'll just have to accept we disagree on whether it's a problem, but I mention it again, because for me it's an important general reason why your three rules aren't enough. It's a statistical fact that capital has consolidated into fewer hands in the US in recent decades, and it's a general tendency of capitalism, from what I've seen. When you put it together with one of the basic tenets of this site, that natural resources are finite and dwindling and the view that infinite exponential growth, the underlying tenet of modern economics (and I'd say capitalism) is absurd and won't happen, then you've got a problem: a relatively small number of people own and control value of and return on a huge and growing portion of the Earth's physical resources - way more than they personally need. And you've got a ton of people who own almost nothing who need what the wealthy few have got in order to survive. As I said in a different way in other comments, your three commandments will address that as long as the masses are willing to quietly die by the billions while staring at and silently observing your three commandments and especially observing private property rights, but - once again, based on history - I think the chances of that happening are as unlikely as the uncorrupt free markets we've never seen happening. The notion that the poor everywhere should just buck up and get a (non-existent cause there aren't enough resources) job doesn't cut it, I'm sorry - though again, we may live on different planets in that regard and have to leave our discussion there on that point and agree to disagree.
Okay, so let's say you don't agree with the generalization that capital is self-consolidating and by its nature, tending to push us off a resource cliff (or as Jeremy Grantham, legendary investment manager since the 19070's who predicted the recent crash, and like us is worried about finite resources said recently, that "Capitalism is threatening our existence.")
But if you don't agree with that general premise, I think you would agree that one specific example I gave of that kind of problem is just an exaggerated version of the kind of divisive problems that happen in a market-driven world all the time:
I'd be genuinely interested in hearing how, following your three rules, you would resolve that problem, or whether you think anything should be done at all. As I understand it, according to your rules, nothing needs to be done - everything's legal and above board, property rights are respected. I'm not sure whether the "not bear false witness" rule extends to potential fraud and damage, and would require that the water's potential brain damaging impact is disclosed and a "not for human consumption" sign is put on the water sold to the poor - of course, even that would take some "nanny state" regulation and enforcement - gov't payrolls, tax and spend, so not sure where you draw the line on that. The world is full of specific situations that need to be resolved or not, & the rules have to address them, or not, I'm sure you agree.
From my point of view, you have to add at least one very miserable and complexifying rule, and find ways to actually encode it into law, just as you would encode your vital three more straightforward moral rules into laws: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." That, admittedly is one terrible and vague rule to have to add - potentially the source of a huge part of the difficulty with government - a virtual deal killer. Unfortunately, it's got to be there if the rules aren't going to be too simple and ultimately fail, as far I'm concerned.
I think we are just going to disagree - I believe the reason is that you see these problems as a cause, while I see them as a symptom (result). I agree capital has consolidated, but it's the manipulations through force by government that has encouraged or allowed it to happen. I look at the problem as primarily the result of monetary malfeasance, then all else follows. The reason I say this is it's the nature of humans to seek out advantages and exploit them. As long as we have systems in place that promote/allow this, we will have problems. It's why I see currency freedom as the most important, because it allows one an escape from a manipulated market. Just as there are those that seek to manipulate currency, there are others that will find a way around those manipulations if possible - it's self balancing and self "regulating" via human nature. Why do you think there is such a crack down by governments for using anything other than the government approved currency?
Agree that natural resource are limited, but exactly how does capitalism require infinite growth? Fiat currencies based on debt certainly do, but that is entirely different than capitalism. In fact capitalism is probably the only way you will properly distribute and use those limited resouces. How else will you determine the value of those resources and what people believe is the best use of them without a capitalistic system to value them?
Exactly how do they control them? How do you extract and use resources by yourself? There is a learned helplessness that pervades society, that without the approval of your overloads (government or economic) you can't survive that I find most distressing.
I also want to know who decides who has "more than they personally need"? I'm certain we wouldn't have to look far to find many people who would say the same about your or I? Or do you simply view as many others do that "way more than they need" is simply defined as "more than I have"?
Examples?
I don't think I have ever said anything remotely like that. I've said we need to protect individuals because otherwise they will be trampled by the majority. So if there are not enough resources, someone will die or suffer; perhaps all we are arguing over is who gets to decide. I believe individuals should have a chance to fight and if lucky win on their merits, versus your solution, which seems to be let some political class make the decision for them?
So let's take your example, and I will say it is unrealistic and unlikely to happen in the real world. What advantage to the wealthy family is their in doing so? Owning all that water, far more than you can drink does not bring you wealth unless you can trade it for things you do need like food and the labor required for the food. Killing off your market and your means of survival isn't a good strategy. Is the rich family planning on getting out in the fields and growing their own food? Why would the poor stick around instead of leaving for somewhere they are not abused? After all, you've pointed out they have nothing so no ties to the area. Why would they not want to leave? If they leave, are the wealthy still wealthy?
Back to your case and the three rules, first, no I don't believe much needs to be done. The best solution is for the poor to leave and not do business with the wealthy family. I believe this is a contrived example and in real world circumstances when someone is abused, they generally resist or remove themselves from that situation.
However, if the wealthy family is fraudulently advertising the water as good, then that is theft. See rule #2. If they are purposely giving something they know will kill, then that's kind of murder isn't it? Rule #1 applies.
I think you seem to miss the point that capitalism is about voluntary trade. Parties exchange goods when both agree the trade is equitable, otherwise it doesn't happen. Where you see the corruption and abuse occur is when that trade is manipulated to the advantage of one of the parties - and this most often done by government via regulation or by monetary manipulation due to a currency being forced upon the participants by government. Value is determined by what one is willing to pay.
No, I don't believe you need that rule, in fact that rule is just another excuse for violating the other rules. Oh, your not loving thy neighbor in the way I think you should, you should be punished. Seems to me that has been the basis for an awful lot of killing. I would much rather have everyone looking out for themselves and being free to choose. People are much more charitable when giving is voluntary versus coerced. Mutual free trade also brings about much more civil conduct since when you rely on others through trade you are much less likely to do things that could damage that voluntary beneficial relationship.
Penn & Teller have a great episode of "Bullshit" that is very closely related to this topic of trade interdependence.
WARNING: BAD LANGUAGE!!!
Though our views overlap in some ways, we just see the world in very different ways, and I guess will just ultimately have to leave it at that, though the exchange is worthwhile. You say that things similar to my example with the family aren't likely, and it's true they infrequently happen with that intensity at a family level, but between individuals and companies, property/resource/pollution/disclosure conflicts like that, I'm sure you'll agee, are coming up each and every day across the US and around the world. I don't think your solution, which would put money in the controlling position every time, works. The problem - and what makes it worse - is that the "rich family" is usually a limited liability, publicly traded, remotely owned corporation that is heavily incented to make money full tilt for shareholders, and also, as in the case of the banks, mining companies, etc. to be blind to and deny the damage caused by its activities and foist the damage out on whoever happens to be in the vicinity and cover their tracks with a fleet of attorneys to wear down opposition. In 1982, I worked as an exec for a company that was clearly legally owed $1 million by Time Warner. A tiny chunk of that million was mine. TW was bought by Jack Tramiel, a guy whose motto was "Business is war", who had TW set aside $10 million for "attorneys costs", some of which he used to tell my company to take 20 cents on the dollar or go bankrupt. Our company had to be downsized and sold, but we fought & eventually got our money after 1-2 years atty delaying tactics and minus 30% atty fees.
You'd say, okay, so the locals affected need to resist. Fine. They do. But money is power, and tends to win, period, unless it's strongly counterbalanced. That's what has happened with the banks in and since 2008. That's where your notion completely fails to operate in the real world, and why we don't see your model free market happening and won't. Shareholders and bondholders often don't want to know what politicians are bought and laws bent to make their returns - and bought they will be, in the past, in the future - unless we see that this is the way the world works and call a spade a spade and set up strong counterbalances designed to maintain fair play - your rules aren't enough.
Here's a company that I own (via the Goldminers ETF GDX) and probably a lot of people on this site own if they own miner funds - Newmont Mining. I just yesterday heard this fight was going on - and I wonder if the families who own the little shacks in the "gully" under the huge slag pile in the picture are going to win and what their drinking water will be like? They might, but history says the odds don't favor them, when all's said and done and the news has moved on.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-07-25/industries/32829629_1_tintaya-copper-mine-peruvian-president-ollanta-humala-peru-gold
The Penn & Teller vid spends a lot of time making jokes about war protestors, (and clearly preaching to the converted), but them clever boyz neglect to mention that the joke is actually very much on them; the protestors were absolutely right - they just didn't speak in phraseology you used about "corrupt statists" constructing a phoney war based on Cheney's made to order CIA reports that "Iraq absolutely has WMD's" and give the green light to make a ton of money for his buddies at Haliburton, KBR and Eisenhower's military industrial complex - but they'd agree with your and Ron Paul's essential point in that respect, that it's a bunch of evil and waste based on corruption. I saw and joined them out there protesting before the war - I wasn't aware of a lot of libertarians out with me in the street saying that that multitrillion taxpayer theft and the murder of hundreds of thousands of Americans, Iraqies, etc. about to be done in our name shouldn't happen and calling a spade a spade exactly as it later came down before it happened, but maybe there were a few. I didn't see libertarian groups on organizing lists. Instead, here we have these clucks in suits so utterly out of it they think they're clever making fun of the protestors, the people who nailed exactly what happened and spoke out while the boyz in their magic suits didn't see it, didn't speak against it, and are saying that world trade would solve the problem. You've >got< to be kidding. We have world trade, and, yes, I agree it's a force for peace if done right, but it didn't stop the wars. And IMO, watch what happens now that the globalized free trade "peace and love" train totally flying on the banker built easy-money credit bubble starts collapsing and has to deal with the real world - now the trade wars are just starting up, and no one's likely to stop them once they get rolling, and the resource wars may follow soon behind - I hope not, but that's one reason why we're localizing and why WTO agreements have gone nowhere for a long, long time. Even uncle Mitt wants to start a trade war, and Ron Paul, who presumably would tend to avoid trade wars and real wars, will never ever be elected anyway, in part because big money and citizen's united will never let it happen, and because the rest of the electorate like me, realize his market ideas are, unfortunately, too naive for the real world.
Anyway, I enjoy sparring with you, rhare, and appreciate that you have taken the time and had patience even though we do look at the world in different way. We'd probably agree on a lot if we were both on a town council dealing things at a local level - it may be more the big picture that we actually can affect less where we clearly have a different philosophy.
FYI: Penn Jillette has been quite out spoken about the war and the corruption for a long time (see Google).
We definitely agree money is power, which is why when it is corrupted it leads to all kinds of things - resource misallocation, wars, abuse of citizens, etc. The point I have been trying to make, apparently poorly, is that fixing that, which involves getting government out of the way, fixes a lot of the problems.
We really don't have "free" trade, because we in the US have all the power because we have the worlds reserve currency (at least for now). We don't have to be good trading partners with anyone else, because we have held all the power. The "clucks" as you like to call them are right, but the problem is money is not "right".
If money accurately reflected the value of labor and resources many of the problems would disappear. It's only when corporation and governments (particularly the US) have access to arbitrarily cheap capital do they get to do "stupid" things. Let's take the wars as a good example. Do you think we would be at war right now if the citizens of this country were actually paying for it? We are currently running $1.5T deficits, and realistically with GAAP we are running more like $5T/year deficits. If every household in the US was receiving a bill for $42,000/year ($5T/110M households), do you think we would still be at war?
Do you think if big banks weren't funding with cheap cash billions to the large corporations, do you think they would be behaving as they do? Do you think the corporations would be near as large as they are (such as TW) without access to free money? When you actually have to borrow from citizens savings to expand?
I very much agree with you on the symptoms, but I would prefer we dig a bit deeper and go after the cancer rather than just applying band-aids. I do have some questions for you to answer.
You seem to agree with the problems, you don't agree with the Libertarian solutions, but you haven't put forth any solutions… What do you think needs to happen to fix the problems if it's not something along the lines of what I propose? If you think the problems can be remedied by government intervention, exactly how will that differ from what has been occuring the past 100 years and why? You say we need more rules, but we have been expanding the number of laws at an exponential rate, if 200,000+ pages of federal law has not been enough to solve the problem, how many are?
And finally, why do you see that government at any size should be different than any other relationship be that family, business, etc? What makes government a special entity that should be allowed to use force instead of voluntary participation?
FYI - I do enjoy these discussions as well, hopefully not driving others too nuts. I really do want to know how you think these problems will be solved since I view the past with large government and centralized planning as a clear failure. And that brings us back to the original comment I made on this thread, how can the same cerntalized planning that has brought us to this point be expected to be better in the future?
"And despite ongoing gains in energy efficiency via admirably wise regulation…"
this sentence is utter nonsense…as a professional that has worked and complied with California Adminstrative Code Title 24, for which is the law that is being touted as 'wise regulation' I take great issue with the ignorance of this statement. This complicated ever changing extremely expensive very political and yes, liberty destroying set of regulations does quite little to actually offset cost. Compliance alone could add up to 35% to your initial building costs alone. The regulations fill two books literally 3inches each and are extremely repressive in building design and layout. Hell, anyone that has worked, designed and built "behind the paper curtain" of California can tell you when it comes to energy use, the state legislature is nothing more than a politburo, granting benevolant favor for those who share it repressive 'conservation only' energy policy and punishing those who don't share it's 'bike path' mentallity with costly and liberty destroying regulation. Listen, when a state can mandate that you must install 'occupancy sensors' in a residential bathrooms (please, like children, we don't know how to turn off a light or aren't responsible for the bill and need the ever so wise and ominiscient bureaucrat to guide us) you no longer have basic liberty and the residents resent it. I know this first hand (i've performed electrical design for 20 years in southern california) and I know how many commerical and residential customers changed, at even greater cost, and reversed such non-sensical demands back to their 'choice' of devices, fixtures and applications. I could go on and on about Title 24 but I digress…
Also not included in the article is the extreme no growth political leftist mentality that REFUSE to find other forms of energy and REPRESS ALL FORMS OF ENERGY PRODUCTION. Oil may have peaked whenever, but it's the state legislature that has REPRESSED THE USE of any of the nature resources, especially oil and the production of nuclear power, waaay before Japan's woes. Nuke is hated like a religion by the no growth marxist political left and has dominated the political structure forcing the private sector to comply to it's unruly and costly regulations whilst it claims energy purity buying electricity from coal burning plants in Wyoming. Hypocrites all! The California Air Resources Board is one of the most corruptable agencies on the face of the globe. To not include how politically corrupt this state is, the ownership of the unions, paying a whole ONE THIRD of the nations welfare and being a SANCTUARY for FOREIGN NATIONALS you cannot truly tell the story of California. Why are highways and infastructure falling apart? It isn't due to lack of revenue. It's by design! The very backwoods no idea's governor that we have now is the same governor that decided in the 70's, with the state legislature NOT to update and build new roads and highways, and keeping things like that dumb ass diamond lane to FORCE BEHAVIOR to Car pool. Have you ever tried to car pool in California?
The shutting down and limiting of power production in California is by political design, pressure and capitulation to no growth ideologues- for which if by magic all the oil you could ever want was deposited off the coast of cali, these people would refuse to obtain, provide and utilize it.
I'm not from California, in fact not anywhere in the US… but some of the things posted here just blow me away… I'm amazed anyone can find occupancy sensors 'repressive'! We have them in our bathroom, even though there is no law that says I have to do this… in fact our house is full of them… in the stairwell, the corridor, the laundry, the toilet, and even the kitchen! One of my pet hates is lights left on when they are not needed. All our friends are really impressed with my automatic lighting and wish they'd thought of the idea themselves…!You may think the "no growth political leftist mentality" is extreme, but it actually is a fact of life, and you better get over it, because growth is FINISHED… whether you are a leftie or conservative. The party's over my friend, not decided by marxists, but by geology.
If you don't like the building code or its consequences, you need to take a long hard look at the crash course… we have exceeded the Australian building code by a very long margin, and are now indepedent of all power bills and laughing all the way to the bank. Wouldn't have it any other way…
http://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/mon-abri/
http://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/the-power-of-energy-efficiency/
[quote=Damnthematrix]I'm amazed anyone can find occupancy sensors 'repressive'! We have them in our bathroom, even though there is no law that says I have to do this… in fact our house is full of them… in the stairwell, the corridor, the laundry, the toilet, and even the kitchen! One of my pet hates is lights left on when they are not needed. All our friends are really impressed with my automatic lighting and wish they'd thought of the idea themselves…!
[/quote]
Mike,
I have my opinions on this issue but before I comment, to be fair, could you please explain how your occupancy sensors work. Are they infrared activated so that they are based on detecting movement? Are there timers involved? Are there any particular designs or brands you would recommend? Any other information would be appreciated. Thanks.
Rhare –I’ll try to answer your questions in a way that ties back to this thread, since, of course, the failing energy supply is a crucial issue everywhere that has to be addressed by markets or governments or ? That way we’ll have at least a bit of an excuse for testing the patience of fellow thread members a little more.First, I’ll go off topic again for a paragraph to say I stand corrected, rhare, regarding Penn as far as relatively early criticism of the Iraq war. I didn’t find any quotes that indicated he spoke out with the goal of stopping the war before it happened, but his quote in winter 2003 could have been from one of the protestors he was making fun of: “Our war in Iraq started as a religious war and it’ll end as Viet Nam. There won’t be a celebrating couple kissing in Times Square when this war ends. It’ll be slow and miserable.” Correct, and identical to what many protestors were saying. My mistake was to imagine that no one actually opposed to yet another corrupt, disastrous war (in US/Iraqi lives, Iraq infrastructure, US finances & international standing) would belittle people trying to stop it as corrupt and wasteful just because their over-arching analysis is different. To me, it makes zero sense to do that if you’re actually focused on trying to get something important done: trying to stop the war. If your focus is an outcome, you welcome every ally that will join you to actually make it happen. That’s why Socialist Bernie Sanders co-sponsors Libertarian Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Fed. That’s why people across the political spectrum and particularly on the left agree with libertarians about letting the big banks fail – though maybe not the specifics of how to do that – and on many civil rights issues, including opposition to “Big Brother” Patriot Act provisions, etc. Hey, Penn’s a comedian and entertainer – fine - but to me, his piece strongly suggests he’s disconnected from the damage of the war and the importance of actually trying to stop it – he’s more into making entertainment and cranking out ideology. Yeah, some of it's funny and I can agree with, but better to join seriously with anyone who wants to stop a disaster.
Anyway, that’s one way of getting around to answering your questions: I believe in competing ideas and democracy as the best bet for government, and so that means respecting diversity and making alliances with people to enjoy life, find solutions, pool resources and get things done – with people that often partly share my views or goals and partly have different views and goals. I’m guessing you agree that far, but are focused on almost all being voluntary, and just figure that government should be as small as possible.
In the case of the occupancy sensors, I imagine you agree with kingroc’s general view that laws requiring energy conservation measures like the sensors and car pool lanes in California are prime examples of inefficient, nanny state repression of individual rights that should be eliminated. I really disagree, although I do agree with you and with kingroc, (and Gregor and anyone who looks at California finance) that California’s budget is insane, and it’s way beyond time to get real about what people are willing to be taxed on and spend on in every category. I also agree with kingroc about pockets of hypocrisy and misinformation in some supposed "green" positions (like sourcing coal energy, cost of hybrid tech vs recycling old cars, I'd add, etc.)
The “checks and balances” idea we learned in elementary school makes sense to me. To me, it’s totally clear that >both< unregulated capitalism and centrally planned government have >big< problems these days. That’s why it’s complicated and from what I see in the world, the best solution is a balance that sets one against the other to keep the other honest – as I said, the Scandanavian democratic socialist states like Sweden (I read not that long ago in the free-market oriented Economist that the free marketeers were happy when Sweden took over a leadership term of the EU because they were known for having been more prudent, “conservative” and intelligent economically than other regimes – they’d actually let their banks fail rather than underwriting the crony capitalists, for example – another case of socialist and libertarian approaches overlapping at times).
Governments permit a crucial level of foresight, social intelligence and long term, large scale planning and projects that free market capitalism, in practice, just hasn’t created and won’t. For example, "free markets" often can't see and don't want to see beyond short term costs - like kingroc's "35% additional building cost for energy efficiency" - to the long term savings that can dwarf the intial investment. On the other hand, gov'ts tend to grow to big like cancers, and free markets generate levels of efficiency and creative solutions that government often can’t or won’t. You likely won’t agree, rhare, but US healthcare is an end-over-end cost and efficiency trainwreck compared to almost any other healthcare system in the civilized world – all of which cost less, get better outcomes across the whole society and have a bigger gov’t role. Europe’s “big gov’ts” had the foresight to raise taxes on gas decades ago, and thereby focus public and private investment into vehicle efficiency and fund intensive public transportation. Now the entire continent is much better positioned with infrastructure for an energy scarce world than is California or the US. Instead, we have kingroc advocating that we should have invested more in highways, and shouldn’t try to legislate energy efficiency. I disagree. Hey, “the American dream” of high energy use lifestyles is in the rear view mirror, & doesn’t compute – as Gregor says, the model of high energy cars, suburban homes for all is not viable here or around the world. Kingroc can imagine that it’s going to be solved by more drilling, nukes, new tech, etc., but that’s not my view, and probably not the view of most who believe the overall message of “limits” embodied in the crash course. I believe studies show that efficiency is, hands down, the cheapest energy dollar.
In my view, big gov’t European gov'ts clearly had a more realistic view of global energy issues for a long time and a more intelligent preparatory response. The US, on the other hand, has been dominated by crony capitalists putting out false projections of energy supply and denying climate change in order to keep milking their franchise ownership of fossil resources with minimal competition and interference in the public interest. Again, the damage is intense – as we look at how unprepared the US is regarding energy and how much direct damage is being done via Katrina, and her following and upcoming twins, tornadoes, droughts - way out of norm climate still being denied by people who seem to think that global scientific consensus – and it is a consensus – is the output of evil “elitist intellectuals” or something – scary stuff.
To me, Libertarianism is a scary pipe dream that really is a Trojan horse for unilateral disarmament by ordinary people in their eternal battle against the power of concentrated wealth and its corrupting influence. I just saw the movie “Farewell, My Queen” – great movie, by the way IMO - about the last days of King Louie and Queen Marie Antoinette and their large bourgeois entourage at their huge palace of Versaille as the French revolution started kicking into high gear and they were living in denial and reading pamplets being handed out on the street that they were on the list of people who would be beheaded by the revolutionary council, as they later were. In a libertarian world that operates by only the three rules you listed, rhare, it seems obvious to me that private wealth and power will rapidly fill the vacuum left by public planning and protecting functions of government. Clearly, some public unions have >way< over-reached & gov't is bloated. But as a non-unionized consumer middle class with no more access to credit from the wealthy to fund their lifestyle continues to disappear, we’d be more and more in a world dominated by intermittent huge "Versaille estates", private police and military, (and more "privately operated" countries), and more stultifying propaganda that smothers the truth, instead of information tracked and distributed in the public interest. The vast majority of people would have little access to resources and would be in very bad shape – unemployed and unneeded. We’re already part way there. On the other hand, look today at where France ended up long after their revolution threw out the wealthy who lived in unbelievable luxury but were stupid enough to leave Parisians with no bread: they now have a society that even I think is a smothering, dysfunctional nanny state.
One can imagine that it's free enterprise that's lifted the poor to a better life globally in recent decades, and that's only partly true. But the whole truth is that it's been a combination of somewhat free markets, protective gov't - and, importantly, the one time gift of a century of low cost energy that's now disappearing. I think it's a really bad idea to just be left with "free markets" right now - the power of money and protection of private property - out of the three. It's a setup for a return to feudal lords and unenlightened times - the powerful few, and the weak who can attach themselves and serve them. Like I say, to me it seems complicated, and takes openness, intelligence, adaptability, alliances, matching power with power and making a bunch of specific decisions and actions. I certainly don’t figure I have all the answers.
Most use PIR, some use ultrasonic, and a few utilize both (but cost quite a bit more.)
Subtle distinction: an occupancy sensor turns on and off the load based on occupancy. Many commercial projects are using vacancy sensors, which require a button press or other gesture to turn on, but automatically turn off when the space is unoccupied. Many of the newer devices can be configured (typically via DIP switches or software settings) for either mode of operation.
DTM,If the issue is truly decided by geology or some other naturally limiting factor or true market forces I can accept that. But what is infuriating is artificially imposed laws and regulations based on political ideology rather than reality. California's bureaurocracy is anything but responsive to reality. A couple of examples:
When I built my house several years ago, I didn't want to install a furnace. We live in Southern California, legendary for it's temperate weather; it very rarely gets below freezing and even then only for a night or two per year. Moreover, I have a very efficient woodburning stove, access to free firewood and an extremely well insulated house. But the building code mandates a furnace. So I was forced to spend extra money to buy a furnace, the production of which incurs an imbedded energy component in addition to the consumption of fossil fuel.
More infuriating was the prohibition against grey water systems for recycling houshold 'waste' water. Water is a far more critical issue here. I had read Art Ludwig's books on the subject and was determined to incorporate them but was cited by the building inspector and was forced to dismantle them (only to re-install illegally at a later date). So much for conservation and environmental concerns.
It's great that you exceeded your local building codes. But you did it by choice. If these energy saving measures are all that they're cracked up to be, then most folks will choose them willingly. I did where cost effective and 'energy effective' and still do.
You note one of your pet hates is lights left on when no one is present. I've got three small children who notoriously leave the light on in their bedroom. But it's not cost effective (nor EROI-effective) to install a sensor or timer. There's only two small CF bulbs in there. I've roughly calculated the payback to be about twenty years!! They'll be long gone well before then. This is my decision, as it should be. People will do the right thing on their own for the most part if given the truth and the option.The government Nazis have no business dictating their mandates in these matters.
Kingroc is right. Most of the regs in California are not about public safety. It's about ideology, (particularly no-growth), cronyism, expansion of the bureaucracy and generation of funding.
Look, I agree the law is an ass… I had my fair share of fights with local authorities. I wanted to go greener than anyone had gone before me, and had to fight all the way! You say "It's great that you exceeded your local building codes. But you did it by choice. If these energy saving measures are all that they're cracked up to be, then most folks will choose them willingly." Except they won't. Or at least the building industry won't, here in any case, refuses to change at every turn…Once I realised it was possible to build houses so efficient they could not be bettered, I decided to use my new found skills to carve myself a niche in the building industry. It was a total failure. Nearly every house I designed was never built because when the clients put tenders out to, the builders continually questioned why you would build such a house, and nearly always talked the customer out of it even though the client wanted it… I even built my own version myself (as in I did all the work personally, with assistance for the heavy stuff of course) just to prove that it was not hard. If I can build one, any builder can…
Building hyper efficient houses is neither hard nor expensive, but the industry does things a standard way (why do you think all houses in an estate look the same?), and they can't be bothered to change. In the end I just gave up and decided the world was screwed anyway and little old me wasn't going to change an awful lot…
I had to fight my electrician to fit the sensors… he said I would come to hate them and they would cost a lot to replace with conventional switches (in the end I did all the wiring myself illegally!). And I've learned to love them…! It certainly pays to put some thought into where to put them, maybe that's the hard part, tradies don't like thinking, it fries their tiny brains…! ao I use a brand called Arlec, quite likely only available in Australia, and they only cost $16 a pop ( I have seven of them). They work by IR and have a built in programmable timer. Sensitivity is also programmable. So the one in the stairwell is set for 30 seconds, the one in the bathroom eight minutes. The one in the kitchen is more sophisticated and cost a whopping $30… it's black instead of white! It's set for four minutes, but at two minutes it senses for motion, and if it detects any resets automatically for the programmed time until no motion is sensed.
We don't do furnaces in Australia, except, I guess in the Snowy Mountains… most of our climates are a bit like Socal… or hotter! But we now have laws banning electric water heaters. They must either be solar or heat pump. I 100% agree with laws like that. Our solar hot water system has already more than repaid itself in zero hot water bills. That's ZERO in eight years!
I too had problems with greywater. Not that they're not allowed here, quite the contrary, but they all use power, and mine doesn't. I fought tooth and nail to have it passed, and eventually won. Crazy. Talk of "market forces", and big companies come to mind who control local autorities to only allow their products while better things invented by little people like me are glossed over.
IMO, market forces are a crock and got us into this mess. When resources are abundant, market forces make them very cheap, like oil and gasoline was in the US right up until the oil shocks of the 70's and 80's. Such cheap fuel encouraged Americans to build and drive the classic gas guzzlers, and most of your oil was wasted driving Chevy Impalas and V8 pick up trucks. And now it's as good as gone. Your loss.
No growth is more than an idology, it's what WILL HAPPEN. I am amazed ANYBODY on this site still disputes the need to end growth… read this: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
I'm not advocating ending immigration to the US in total. What I am advocating is that policy be grounded on doing what is best for the citizens of this country and not the corporate interests or interests of the immigrants. We actually had very restrictive immigration policies from the 1920's throught the late 1960's. This is the period of time in which one of my parents came to this country. It was a good time for immigrants and native born workers. This combined with the broader educating of women and bringing them into the workforce lowered population growth and by the early 1970's we had achieved population stabilization. But things changed and we liberalized immigration policy in 1965. There were many unintended consequences to this. So much so that one of the bill's sponsors, the liberal Senator from Minnesota, Eugene Mc Carthylater bemoaned what he helped to do in his book Colony of The World. In closing, I think it is disingenuous to advocate any kind of conservation policy without looking at population and it's impact.
Thanks for the comments. FWIW, over the past several years I have written and been interviewed about the Golden State's energy situation, and there is no question that CA could choose to significantly increase its oil production. It would take some time to ramp up, but offshore CA–based on the collective research to date–could probably produce as much as 400 kbpd (thousand barrels per day). Additionally, I have suggested that this production (which few in CA are willing to risk, btw, given that it's offshore) could be used to further strip out the automobile from the state's infrastructure by rebuilding streetcar networks, and other passenger rail. I have also been clear that, imo, it would be silly if not stupid to take on the risk of new Offshore production if its only purpose was to maintain the current Automobile-Highway complex in its current form.
Overall, CA evidences the problem with large scale systems when the economy is no longer expanding. Contracting systems, as when the tide goes out, reveals who has been swimming naked. So, partisan political blame is of little use, and of little meaning here. There is something much bigger taking place.
Best to all,
G
Perhaps CA will rethink their pristine shoreline mantra at all cost seeing as the Cesium levels and nuclear fallout has contaminated the area from our Dear Friends from due West. I know this, oil is highly toxic, and lots of it is washing up on to the beaches as is natures way, and many unaware people are just picking that spew up then blaming oil companies when it is just the natural leaking from what must be some nice puddles of a precious resource. What do I know, I just read stuff, and Gregor just used a fine narrative for the proper use of Oil and that is:'use it to get off of it'. Sounds good to me.
Go Tigers
Regards
BOB
Mr. Macdonald- I appreciate your writing and get benefit from your perspective and analysis.I print them out and refer friends and colleagues that i am trying to wake up with them. Thank you.
With that said, I often find that academics are disconnected with the reality that surrounds them.
All policy is, especially energy policy is enacted from a political apparatus. The political apparatus is itself subject to great bias based on a great many of things, one of them 'ideology'. So so say "partisan political blame is of little use, and of little meaning here" is again disconnecting from the source (or cause) that the effect (i.e. inefficacious energy production and supply) is emanating from. It also disconnects from the fact that political apparatus are employed and ran by 'man', which is fallible and subject to grab and exercise great abuse of power over it's 'subordinates', that is 'the individual'.
It is not of 'little use' if the CARB (cal. air resources board) enacts a energy policy, that is based on a flawed report, even after the report and the author are publicly discredited, especially if it puts thousands of 'energy users' out of business or in economic hardship. It is an abuse of authority by idealogical bias that is expressed through the political apparatus as an energy policy.
Bureaucracies are not gods, nor benevolent and for some reason, most academics seem blind to the fact that evil (yes, i'll use that term as defined as : that which is 'not perfect' or a 'privation of that which is wholly good and perfect') is among us and dwells richly in politics. We suffer not just from a point of broken 'mechanics' and if we 'just implemented the right mechanisms' we would have the right solution. Evil, as defined, is the systematic cause or the 'why' a government or bank or entity of any sort would institute such damaging policies.
Simple put another way, 'you don't starve the children waiting for the corn to harvest when there's food in the pantry'
California can be tapping ALL it great resources, including it's private sector's ability to innovate with new sources of energy, not either or. We could be tapping our oil reserves, our natural gas reserves, building new and smart nuclear and hydro electric plants while unleashing the private sector on any new technology that is here or on the horizon including the problems of having to cover (travel) a large geographical area.
But the legislature and more over the unelected oligarchies like the CARB do the opposite, they smash private business, abolish use of natural resources and punish the use of existing natural resources…this is ALL politics my friend and a 'statist' mindset that a few masterminds know better than the individual.
That is the true nature of our energy and resource calamity: the individual has been crushed by an over reaching ever growing non responsive body politic that is all powerful and accountable to none.
You might have assisted such bodies, but I and millions of productive thinking and creative individual citizens have had to live and work UNDER such powerfully destructive political policies made by just a relatively few people.
No solution will be efficacious if the individual is subjugated to the tyranny of the few political elite that seem to always hold the next 'solution' that brings us closer to disaster.
So with that said, I agree that there is something much bigger taking place but respectfully disagree that it is of 'little use' to see and understand the causes that continue to block the State of California (or the nation for that matter) from ever becoming 'golden' again.
-steven j. rocker