h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well we got a system here in the UK where we pay taxes to help the poor out, its quite a common system around the world.

fixed incomes as in pensions? I would have thought the government would raise the pensions if they want to be re-elected.

The government can raise the pensions, but in order to do that, they have to raise the taxes. More people pay taxes than draw pensions. It's not a clever move politically.

The thing we do is what I said... let the utilities go bankrupt, let the state buy back the resources of those utilities at bargain basement prices, and let them pass the savings on to their customers. And let's not have any more talk about privatising monopolistic industries as a way to reduce costs and improve service... I think we've seen enough failures already.

Might I give you a promotion for that one, Sellers? As much as I want to disagree with you (it's so much fun!), I just can't. What a splendid idea. But what about in the meantime?

As for raising taxes to raise pensions...with a Republican in office?! When pigs fly!

I do get the feeling that in the US, elected officials are less responsive to the views of the electorate than in Europe ?

It's not so much that elected officials are not interested in the views of the electorate as it is how much the electorate is willing to pay to be heard.

Okay, okay, a bit harsh, maybe.

What sometwhat worries me, though, is the blythe belief that if our high tech world doesn't work out, we can all go "back to the land". Truth is, without the high-tech methods, and the high-tech, high-speed distribution of the food and fuel, we cannot support our current population, let alone the population we will swell to without a major change in reproductive attitude. We can't go back to the farm -- there are too many of us. The quality of life is already being degraded for the less fortunate in this country. It will be impossible without our high-energy high-wire act.

Alright, enough said; you may now fire away!

SC

Can't see why anyone would want to pelt you with tomatoes for making sense SC. It's true. The population is just too big to gently wind down from hi to lo-tech, just like that. The human population surges forward like a huge tanker. You can't just stop dead and slam it into reverse. It takes time to move something of this size in a different direction and it won't move piecemeal. It has to be a planned and coordinated effort. The trouble is, with Bush pulling out of Kyoto, the rest of the world (the ones who care, at least) are wondering when we can begin and if, by the time it's sufficiently bad for people like Bush to notice there's a problem and get on board, it'll be too late for people some parts of the world.

Sorry to but in, i think that's precisely why we should be talking about taking some form of action against the United States. This just isn't some wee forest being cut down, or an oil platform being dumped in the North Sea. Its far bigger than that. the lives that'll be lost, the devastation that'll be caused, is, quite frankly too huge to contemplate.
* Europe should apply 'gentle' pressure on bush to realise the error of his ways. And tony - what's the point of this 'special relationship' if you're not going to use it constructively?
* We should be putting public pressure on Bush by voicing OUR opposition to his stance and
* Economic pressure should be put on Bush and his cronies (the oil industry). Let them know we're not going to stand by and watch our planet be devestated. Ultimately its the only way to make our views known. Economic sanctions are really the only effective measures we have to stop this. I really think that its make or break time for us. this is a truly gobal issue.

"the lives that'll be lost, the devastation that'll be caused, is, quite frankly too huge to contemplate." - This is just a slight exaggeration, no? After all, do the Kyoto agreements *really* hold the key to the end of human pollution?

No, but Kyoto was a much needed start. But the Bush thing is much bigger than just one treaty. The point is that environmental protection is never going to square with the need for sustained economic growth for US business, so there will never be that first step without a very brave person (who is more worried about the future than where their next campaign dollar is going to come from) inhabiting the Whitehouse.
There's money in pollution boys, and not much to be made (now) in clearing it up. Simple economics.

Politicians in the US and abroad might have a change of heart (and wallet) if this issue was presented thusly: the cost of industrial regulation now versus the cost of the cleanup generations in the future. Right now most economic arguments against any controls established by Kyoto and other agreements focus entirely on short-term costs.

Then again, I could be naive.

>(who is more worried about the future than where their next campaign dollar is going to come from)

why are companies allowed to donate so much to the campaigns? Surely that is just wrong, and of course the parties will be biased.

A couple of thoughts: First, economic pressure in the form of some form of tariff paid to trade with countries who are willing to "sign on" with the Kyoto treaty. I read in Time magazine (cover story this week) that the US leads the world in CO2 production, and trails the world in attempts to deal with it. Hitting the US (and the Bush administration) in the pocketbook may be the only way to get their attention.

Second, There may be some slight hope to end the parade of political purchasers, in the form of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill, I know, I made a cynical post earlier in this thread, but I think if this is managed right, it may be a solid start. Granted, the Republicans are more able to raise the largest number (and thanks to M-F C.R.B., the amount per donation)of individual contributions. I think though that this may spur the Democrats into a stronger effort to match the other parties in support. I am afraid, though, that the Libertarians and the other (minor -- sorry!) parties will be at an even larger disadvantage. We have to do something about this eventually -- while I am a Democrat, I also believe that the more the merrier as far as differing viewpoints (read parties) go. I just wish that there was a stronger and more equal footing for the Greens and the Libertarians, as well as anyone else who wants to join in. We make a lot of lip service to the "two party system", but we'd be a bit healthier for an "n-party system".

SC

Interesting article in the Guardian today about Ian Thomas who has recently been fired for posting a map on the internet of the calving ranges of the Alaskan caribou.
Funny that a cartographer should be fired for making a map. Oh yes, forgot to say the map suggested that vital environmental resources were in the same place that a number of oil producers (big Bush contributors one and all) plan on scouting for black gold.
That, combined with the lifting of the ban on building roads through indigenous forests, closing down environmental research centres, lifting levels of arsenic allowed to be dumped into the water table and scrapping Kyoto, suggests to me that Bush is actually ANTI-environment, if such a thing were possible.

I get that feeling, too. Which in part explains my anti-Bush sentiments.

Campaign financing is irrelevant in today's society, or at least it needs to be. After all, who really reads the posters? Do pins and bumper stickers really win votes? Of course not. The battle is won and lost in the media, especially on television. They are going to report what happens without requiring monetary incentive, because they stand to make revenue from it, in the form of commercials aired during newscasts.

The media holds the rights to microwave frequencies which are in the public domain, but regulated by the FCC, a limb of the executive branch of government. So, they hold exclusive rights to public property through the federal government. The government keeps them in business, and the candidates provide them with revenue generating content.

With this comes certain responsibilities to the public. They have to report the news without bias, which they do with varying degrees of success. But they could also eliminate the need for big-business influence on politics by providing a service to the community... free, equal air-time for advertisements for candidates. After all, that's where all the money goes. Beyond that, the candidates simply need to travel between speaking engagements. Even a third party can afford bus fare. Fat campaign contributions wouldn't make much difference over who won or lost.

Will they do it? Only if we make them. After all... they get to make all the revenue from the election. And the media moguls are probably just as deep into the pockets of the candidates as any other industry.

Just wodering if either of theses stories will make the news in th US today (both announced today)?

The National(US) Hydropower Association today released its third annual list of hydroelectric projects that have achieved great environmental stewardship while meeting regional electrical needs.

(do a search on 'National Hydropower Association' for info)

&

Support for concentrating solar power (CSP) in the United States will drop by 86 percent this year, according to the federal budget. CSP is one of the larger losers in funding for the Department of Energy under the Bush administration's budget released on Monday. In FY2000, CSP received US$14.9 million, which dropped to $13.7 in 2001 and will drop to $1.9 this year under the proposed budget. Funding for photovoltaic energy systems will drop to $39.0 million in FY2002, versus $75.0 million last year and $64.5 million in FY2000. The proposed decrease for this year is 48 percent. Most renewable energy technologies will be cut by almost half. Wind energy drops to $20 million from $39.5 million in FY2001 and $31.7 million in FY2000. Solar building technology research will drop to $2 million from $3.9 and $1.9 respectively, while geothermal development will drop to $13.9 from $26.9 and $23.3 million in the previous two years. Hydrogen research will receive $13.9 this year, down from $26.8 and $24.2 in FY2001 and FY2000, while hydropower will drop to $2.5 million from $4.9 and $4.8 respectively.

By way of comparison with that last news item I posted, here in the UK today, the Crown Estate released the names of 18 wind farm developers who have pre-qualified to obtain leases for development of offshore wind farms.

Interesting point to note; from October of this year all electricity companies in the UK will have a legal obligation to supply an increasing proportion of power from renewable sources of generation such as wind

But its not all bad news from Bush...President Bush is siding with his Democratic predecessor on two air pollution issues, agreeing to regulate mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants and requiring cleaner diesel fuel and engines.

Two points ...

One: just because a program or group of programs with a environmentally-friendly catch-phrase title is having its funding cut does not mean that less work or less attention is being paid to the subject. Under previous administrations, such projects were famous for being sinks where lots of money disappear into with very little actual benefit produced, be it either actual products and inventions or just pure informative research. I don't think the common failures I've witnessed in such programs were the fault of the people in the programs, but rather of those managing and organizing them. It's a fact of life that when people (either government or industry) get lots of money and resources they tend to work far less efficiently. When such government programs got fat with funds, it seemed to me that "more studies" was the mantra, not "better studies." To be fair, I don't know for certain whether or not those programs are suffering budget cuts based on their performance or based on some other, more political, agenda. My uncertainty is plainly because I do not have the actual performance data of the organizations in question in front of me - but then, neither I suspect do you. Neither did the news media agency that wrote that article, I suspect. Regardless, they most likely didn't report it if they did know. My point is that everything we hear, see, and read in the news is presented in such a way as to raise question, doubt, and suspicion because that's what sells. (that is, if there isn't enough evidence to print that makes a plain accusation of outrageous proportions) So, such cutbacks are not necessarily bad, as you hint at. They *might* be, depending on your point of view, but they may also merely be trying to make those programs more efficient.

Two: I wonder if you (or the media that reported that news as well as others who read it) know how much more expensive (due to the highly inefficient and inconsistent power generation nature of the technology) wind-generated power is? Are you willing to pay the extra cost? Are you willing to absorb the problems inherent with relying on the weather (essentially) to produce your power that you can make sacrifices when that power becomes extrodinarily scarce? Such questions cannot be ignored - else those that would rely on such things without realizing it face potential power crises that make California's recent problems look like an outing in the park.

Now, I'm not saying we should abondon hopes for using such power sources - far from it! I feel we should, as a society, be dedicating more resources towards increased battery and electrical energy storage in order to make the problems inherent with solar and wind energy sources less significant and far more viable - and we shouldn't stop there, but continue to research better power sources. It's just that I get upset and annoyed when I see news articles designed to sell papers and influence popular opinion through the spread of information that is incomplete or deceiving in a way designed to present controversy and outrage - in short, to stir up emotion, a practice that continues to gray the line between news and entertainment. It's a byproduct of having the news media as a business that no one in the media industry seems to be willing to take responsibility for. I personally find such practices beneath contempt; and yet, because they sell well, they are almost universally accepted as the method for succesful distribution of news. So again, I'm not trying to pick on any one person here, particularly HappyDude (I hope you remain so after reading this). I'm trying to criticize your sources for reporting only facts that seem to drive home popular opinion and stir up emotion, rather than portray the entire picture and define why the events are happening the way they are, and what they might mean to their readers.

As usual JD, everything you've said seems very sensible. The trouble is that the news media are, in a way, almost as good as terrorists at turning some people away from a just cause. You only have to listen to the music leading up to the news and even playing in the background while the news is being read (channel 5 news is a fine example) to know that every disaster and horror story is designed to try to get you all excited about it. Confusing news with entertainment is despicable and especially when it's about something as important as this issue. Most of us get most of our current affairs information from tv and newspapers. We should be able to trust them, but clearly we cannot. That's a shame, because most of us also haven't got time research each important issue independently, even if we are fortunate enough to have access to the internet.