Broadband’s Problems in Poor Areas

Years after the introduction of the Internet, it seems amazing that some citizens of the Old Dominion do not have access to broadband, but that’s the way it is.

For-profit companies ignore mountainous areas or poor flatlands because they claim it costs too much to pay the installation costs. For several years, governments have promised to fill the gap. Indeed, Barack Obama identified the problem in last year’s campaign and promised solutions which could cost $7.2 billion in stimulus package money.

But as The Washington Post points out today, even government involvement is dicey. It looks at two small Southwestern communities — Lebanon and Rose Hill — and shows just how different their broadband experience has been.

In Lebanon, a small burg where the tobacco fields end and the coalfields begin, Rep. Rick Boucher and Gov. Mark Warner put together a $2.3 million grant package to wire the area. It was wise move because defense contractor Northrup Grumman and software maker CGI swooped in to take advantage of the new, nearly instantaneous communications and created 700 jobs paying about $50,000 a year.

Poor Rose Hill had a different story. Boucher brought grants worth $700,000 in part for the multi-billion settlement with four tobacco companies in 1996 and other sources to wire Rose Hill. But only three homes have signed up for the service which costs about $50 a month.

It is stories like these that make the U.S. a Johnny-Come-Lately in broadband. Among advanced industrial nations it comes in pathetic 15th place, down from 13th place a few years earlier. South Korea, Japan and some European countries are farther ahead.

Some argue that it is easier to wire the crowded neighborhoods of Tokyo or Seoul and there’s truth in that. But the lame performance hurts the U.S. as it struggles through recession and tries to make a tech comeback amidst tough global competition.

Part of the problem is the easy-profit, next-quarter thinking of the big U.S. communications firms. It is much easier for Comcast or Verizon to wire concentrated downtowns or rich suburbs faster since they can jack up their prices and go for a triple play of broadband, digital phone and cable television all in one expensive monthly price of about $200. Doing so gets them a faster and fatter return on equity and makes them look better on Wall Street.

That sure was the case in Philadelphia a few years ago when I wrote a story about the problem for a national business magazine. Inner ghetto areas were left behind as rich, white neighborhoods got wired. One African-American small business owner told me that he wanted broadband for his business but doesn’t want to also have to pay hefty fees for HBO, Starz and ESPN which he doesn’t watch when he is working.

Philadelphia’s government bravely launched a $15 million broadband project and Earthlink won the contract. But it was a bad play since Earthlink was hit hard by its exposure to antiquated DSL technology and got in such financial trouble it dropped Philly. Some private investors got the project for a song and few residents have signed up for broadband.

In Southwest, other anomalies come into play. Lebanon has a high high school graduate rate and is the locus of a coalfield economic development authority. These people were highly annoyed with me some years back when I did a piece on the coalfields that didn’t paint the rosy picture they wanted. I noted that coal is dirty, dangerous and cyclical. Locals have trouble getting adequate health care given their isolation. One hospital in Clintwood, the only one for miles around, shut down abruptly because the Ohio company that owned it went out of business.

Still, Lebanon had an edge over Rose Hill which has a much lower education rate, the Post reports.
The jobs that Lebanon got are good deals because too many times, the only new employment people find is with call centers that shut down as fast as they set up.

The problems also raise questions about Virginia’s tobacco commission which decides how to divvy up the oodles of bucks the state gets from the tobacco settlement. Years ago I wrote about how the first act of the highly-politicized commission was not to pay for health care or infrastructure or educate kids not to smoke. No. They gave thousands away to holders of tobacco quotas, some of whom lived in Brooklyn, Las Vegas or the Gold Coast of Chicago and had very little to do with Virginia. This was done on the theory that they were going to lose money. Go figure.

Anyway, the tale of two towns in the mountains shows the problems of providing broadband in poor or isolated areas. It’s amazing since it is already 2009 and most of us take broadband for granted.

Peter Galuszka


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

70 responses to “Broadband’s Problems in Poor Areas”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    For the most part, politically, Richmond is a Verizon town (and ignores muni-wifi). Since Richmond is Virginia’s capitol, I would say this is a Verizon problem. And my inner city Richmond neighborhood still does not have FIOS.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Closest I come to broadband is using a wireless celluarl modem, and I’m only 50 miles from downtown. It’s plenty fast compared to dial up, but it’s no broadband.

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Peter, good job on the post. You made some excellent points.

    A few reactions.

    Entertainment drives telecom speed. It always has and probably always will. People will purchase faster access to entertainment and then learn to use it for other things.

    Some studies suggest that blacks & Hispanics are a better entertainment market than whites. I think it's generally quite stupid to ignore perceived non-affluent neighborhoods. Many are good markets for entertainment programming. But then, look at the clowns who run most American businesses. Need I say more?

    Other studies suggest that, rural markets aside, the U.S. does as well in terms of broadband penetration as most other countries. Speeds tend to be higher elsewhere though.

    The biggest problem in bringing broadband to rural areas is the so-called "middle mile," the connection between the small town and the Internet backbone routes. This is where Recovery Act money should go. That and the extremely remote areas. Keep in mind that Cherry County, NE is larger than Rhode Island in area.

    But absent ongoing subsidies, there still needs to be profit in rural markets for broadband to be sustained. Recovery Act money can address some of the capital costs, but operating margins cannot be ignored.

    TMT

  4. Larry G Avatar

    I had a couple of thoughts. One was to ask if the broadband quandary has any parallels with the effort to wire rural America with electricity – and how that was handled.

    Second… is the advent of the “air card” which is the same thing that Ray is using… a USB plug-in card that gets speed better than dial-up but not a good a cable….

    It costs about $60 a month for the heavy use plan… but thinking about these places with only a few homes.. wouldn’t it be cheaper for the state to encourage/incentivize the use of cellular broadband rather than the much more expensive cable solution?

    things sure are quiet around BR these days…

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “wouldn’t it be cheaper for the state to encourage/incentivize the use of cellular broadband rather than the much more expensive cable solution?”

    For individuals it probably would be. However, that does nothing to facilitate job creation that comes if rural areas were truly “connected”.

    RH, I believe there are still large areas of I-66/Rt 50 out your way where you still don’t have cell phone service….unless you call 911 and then it works.

    What’s up with that??

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Fauquier hates cell phone towers. They would rather have scenery thn safety.

    I got an offer to put a tower on my property and threw it away because I didn’t figure I’d ever get zoning permission.

    Instead, one of my neighbors got it, and the $2500 a month rent I could have sorely used. But, she has plenty of money and plenty of time, so she could afford to pursue the process. Knowing what I know now, I would have hired somone to pursue it for me, but at the time I figured it was a cdead loss waste of time.

    My guess is that there is only service for some providers, but if you call 911 they patch it through. My tenant bought an air card from another provider, and it won’t work at her place, een though she is closer to the tower than I am.

    The lady who got the tower had it located behind her place so she can’t see it, but it is partially in front of her neighbor’s view. At the time, he was thouroughly agitated, but is tseems to have calmed down or reaches some level of acceptance.

    Had it gone on my place, no one would know it was there. Too bad, my place could have used the money.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    KATHMANDU — Mobile phone services will soon be available on top of Mt Everest, the world’s tallest peak. The service, which will operate on both GSM and CDMA handsets, will be introduced by Nepal Telecom (NT), Nepal’s largest telecom company.

    “We are planning to commence the service by mid-June this year,” Anoop Ranjan Bhattarai, chief of NT’s satellite division, told Republica. “We hope it will provide an alternative to those currently relying on satellite phone services.”

    ——————

    What’s wrong with this picture? The Nepalese are more forward looking than the Fauquier county supervisors.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “GeoCities, a free Web hosting service that achieved fame in the mid-90s, died Thursday at the Yahoo headquarters in Silicon Valley.”

    You don;t get something for nothing.

    RH

  9. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    I remember when my aunt got one of the first telephones in Hillbilly Holler. That was in 1962 and wouldn’t have been possible without the development of a co-op of neighbors sharing the costs. I used to hang out at her house with my cousin, listening in on the party line. The juicy calls came from a house farther down the line, identified by three rings followed by two more.

    Our family didn’t get a phone until ’69, when I had one installed so I could call home from my Navy base. Wasn’t really a need before that. Such is life in the sticks.

    Now history is repeated with internet availability. Everyone wants to wait on the big companies to provide their service, missing opportunities for jobs, business, and spices of life. Digging around I found this story which originates not far from where my cousin and I were first introduced to phone sex.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5053488

  10. It’s hard to fault the telcoms for being slow to run high-speed Internet access into tiny coalfield hamlets or impoverished inner city neighborhoods. According to the evidence in Peter’s post, you can give ’em high-speed Internet access, but that doesn’t mean they’ll drink it.

    The people who run the telecoms are not stupid. They know a lot more about their business than we do. They spend big bucks on marketing surveys and marketing analyses, and I’m sure that they’ve found from hard experience that populations with certain income/educational characteristics just don’t offer a payback.

    On another note, several years ago, Virginia Tech acquired some wireless rights for SW Virginia with the idea of making broadband more readily available. I wonder what ever happened to that idea.

  11. Larry G Avatar

    http://vabb.com/

    http://vabb.com/coverage.php

    so… why can’t the state of Va put a tax on existing cell phone bills to incentivize Virginia Broadband to expand into areas that are not as profitable as the areas they are already expanding into?

    Don’t we already pay a tax on our telecom bills right now to expand service?

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry,
    Your idea would seem to be a great solution albeit with one big problem. The tax on phone service is paid only by traditional land-line phone companies as it was set up years ago. Net-based phone companies such as Vonage and providers such as Comcast do not have to pay such a tax since they use Voice over Internet Protocol. Verizon does since it is a “traditional” phone company. Maybe things have changed but that’s my understanding and it has a lot of old-time phone firms enraged about VOIP interlopers. I don’t think there’s been a significant federal law change on telecom since 1996.
    Peter Galuszka

  13. Groveton Avatar

    This problem has two components:

    1. It is less profitable to run communications to distrant locations with a limited number of people at the end. That was true of telephone lines and was addressed with the universal service provisions of the Communications Act of 1934. It established a subsidy whereby areas that had lower costs and higher populations would subsidize the buildout and ongoing pricing for areas with higher costs. It was a subsidy – pure and simple. The same cost base problem is true for higher capacity broadband lines.

    2. Telcos are profit making ventures with shareholders, quarterly results, dividend payments, etc. Why should they lower the value of their stock price by building less profitable and/or unprofitable broadband networks?

    This whole thread cracks me up. For years I’ve read Bacon’s Rebellion. Always the same mantra – no more subsidies! Cul de sacs create subsidies – they should be eliminated! Suburbs create subsidies – they should be eliminated. Home buildiers benefit from low proffers which create subsidies – they should be eliminated! Electricial loss in transmission plant creates subsidies for those living far from the generating capability – they should be eliminated!

    Where is the hue and cry against subsidies for broadband deployment? Where is the famous “pay as you go” attitude? I’ll tell you where – on the ash heap of pretense. The philosophy of Bacon’s Rebellion has never been about economic fairness or paying the fully allocated costs of anything. It has been about income redistribution and moving America to a more European style socialism. This thread confims it. Subsidies for individuals are bad – unless the individuals are part of a special class of people favored by the socialist masters. In that case – subsidies are good.

    Lenin’s birthday was two days ago. I assume you all had a great celebration? Me? I was working my butt of in California. See, the problem with socialism (even of the European variety) is that there still has to be someone from whom you can take.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    A couple of comments.

    Peter, the FCC requires phone-to-phone (as opposed to computer-to-computer) VoIP providers to contribute to Universal Service Fund support. I have digital voice service from Cox and pay USF each month.

    Groveton – re subsidies. From an economic standpoint, a subsidy is a subsidy. However, with Universal Service, we have a clear declaration of policy by Congress that supports explicit subsidies to consumers in high-cost areas, low-income consumers, schools and libraries, and rural health care. It’s all above board whether or not it’s good public policy. 47 U.S.C. sec 254.

    Let’s have the same public debate over other subsidies. Should Fairfax County subsidize roads in Pittsylvania County? And for what specific reasons? If so, by how much? Ditto for schools, etc. What are the standards?

    The same debate should be held for subsidies for development, etc. Put the debate before the public; let everyone weigh-in; and make the subsidies explicit. See where we come out!

    TMT

  15. Larry G Avatar

    well I probably deserve the pasting dished out by Groveton and seconded by TMT.

    but let me clarify…

    I’m opposed to any and all subsidies that go to folks who don’t need them.

    I think it is dumb policy to provide subsidies for services and infrastructure that have a strong demand from people who can afford to pay for them.

    On the other hand, a child deserves an equal chance at life and so I have no problem with a system that provided equitable access to a public education.

    I think this is one of the basic things that has made this Country what it is compared to countries that operate (or did) without a public education system.

    I also classify the availability of electricity and sanitary water and sewer systems the same way.

    Farm-to-market …basic..rural roads.. ditto…

    ditto for libraries… and the modern-day version – the internet.

    but subsidizing commuting roads to provide solo daily commuting to a McMansion by someone who earns 3 times the per capita state average….???

    no way… what legitimate public good is served by this?

    all you are really doing is incentivizing ..indeed encouraging more consumption because you’re essentially selling it for less than what it costs…. for something that already has a strong demand.

    subsidize lunches for kids – yes… and it’s not like more and more folks are going to get poor on purpose so that their kids can get cheaper lunches…

    my view – if there is demand for a service – and the folks using it can afford to pay for it.. why do we subsidize it?

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We had party lines too. I used to ask the operator for number 358 and she whould say, “Well, If you are are trying to call Dennis, he’s over at Ron’s house, I’ll connect you there.”

    Now thats a small town.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Just to stir the pot a little bit…

    There are other technologies besides those offered by the the major telecom companies that could reach rural areas. Some of them include;

    -Satellite

    -BPL (Broadband over Power Lines)

    Why put all of your eggs (or subsidies) behind one technology?

    Seems to me that where there’s a will there’s a way.

    How many folks in rural areas get the best package offered by Dish Network, or DirecTV so they can watch NASCAR or their favorite NFL team?

    But, when it comes to offering broadband internet service there are not many takers?

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Much later they put in a rudimentry 911 system and the dispatch operator was located in an unused air traffic control tower at the airport, so they could also act as fire spotters.

    One night I happened along a traffic accident on the back road not far from the ariport. One of th elocal drunks had hit a deer and run off the road. This was before cell phones and the closest phone of any kind happened to be the one at the dispatch tower.

    So I patched him up enough to stop the bleeding, laded him in my car and drove to the airport.

    But being night time the building was locked, so there I was with an injured person in my car and no way to reach the dispatcher who was forty five feet away, straight up.

    So, I simply climbed up the drainpipe and knocked on the window, whereupon the dispatcher went into hysterics, being certain that I was there intent on rape, or something.

    Pretty soon I had more help than I needed.

    Like the Warden said in Cool Hand Luke, “What we have here is a lack of communication.”…….

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton,
    I have never bought into the Libertarian, laissez-faire, small government, government-is-bad, anti-subsidy shtick that often describes Bacons Rebellion. I am often at odds with the namesake (had lunch with him yesterday) although I am disappointed he isn’t around that much.
    I am more to the left and see a role for government when the market has failed as it has with broadband.
    TMT may be “Too Many Taxes” I might be “NET” — “Not Enough Taxes.”

    Peter Galuszka

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “a role for government when the market has failed “

    I agree. The problem is in determining when the market has failed and when someone claims the market has failed, seeking some advantage.

    That’s why the solutions need to be market based. This boils down to having the government declare some new kind of property right, and then protecting that property and allowing it to be traded.

    How this works with rural broadband, I haven’t a clue.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How many folks in rural areas get the best package offered by Dish Network, or DirecTV so they can watch NASCAR or their favorite NFL team? But, when it comes to offering broadband Internet service there are not many takers?”

    What would happen were NASCAR or NFL programming offered at more favorable prices from the Internet than on Dish Network or DirectTV? Or suppose interactive programming of some sort were to be offered.

    The battle at the FCC over Comcast and Network Neutrality stemmed from Comcast’s messing with Internet customers’ use of BitTorrent software to access programming. And a number of content vendors use BitTorrent software to distribute their programming.

    Maybe, NASCAR and the NFL might turn to Internet distribution of some of their programming. What happens in rural America then?

    TMT

    P.S. to Peter. NET is fine with me, so long as you pay them and not me. I still think we have TMT.

  22. Larry G Avatar

    re: “BPL (Broadband over Power Lines)”

    good suggestion!

    this is the same technology that is needed for a Smart Grid and Smart Meters!

    a win-win-win…. rural broadband just gets pulled along with the rest of the implementation…

    I would expect Obama…sooner or later.. if he’s gonna talk wind, solar, tide, etc… is going to hear that integrating those sources into the grid will require a Smart Grid….

    and if he wants to address greenhouse gases – we’ll need smart meters… so they can charge the wazoo out of folks who use too much…at the wrong times…

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We have a farm that is so far out in the boonies I can only see my neighbors with binoculars. Yet we have reliable broadband service.

    The service I have is by satellite and is available almost anywhere in the US for under 50.00 per month.

    No expensive infrastructure is required. Why should we pay for a national broadband service when this service is readily available?

    My service is through wildblue.net, but I think Hughes net offers a similar service.

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Anony 3:14

    That’s interesting. What’s the name of the service? I didn’t know that. Might comein handy someday.

    Peter Galuszka

  25. Groveton Avatar

    My comments were mostly directed at LarryG. Here is what he wrote in response:

    “I think it is dumb policy to provide subsidies for services and infrastructure that have a strong demand from people who can afford to pay for them.”.

    This type of comment is the problem. Counties subsidize counties in Virginia. Money is sucked out of Fairfax County (including, effectively, from the poor in Fairfax County) and swept to other counties (including the rich in these other counties).

    Subsidies are regressive. And jurisdiction based subsidies are regressive and unfair.

    The right way to raise money for government is through direct, graduated taxes where the graduations are tied to cost of living by region. You’d have to make more money to get into the top bracket in NoVa than you would in SW Va. However, based on the incomes – there would be a lot more people (by count and percentage) in the top bracket in NoVa.

    Of course, eliminating hidden taxes and subsidies in favor of visible income taxes would put a dazzling spotlight on what’s really going on in Richmond. And I suspect that a lot of people who are basically making ends meet in places like Prince William County would be horrified to see is actually raised and spent.

  26. Larry G Avatar

    re: “This type of comment is the problem. Counties subsidize counties in Virginia. Money is sucked out of Fairfax County (including, effectively, from the poor in Fairfax County) and swept to other counties (including the rich in these other counties).”

    My comments were about subsidies in general – that subsidizing services or infrastructure for which there is a strong demand – and the users of it can well afford to pay for it – makes no economic sense.

    But Groveton is incorrect about the direct jurisdictional subsidies in Virginia – or for that matter in most other states.

    When you pay taxes to a State – the State will then allocate it back…. sometimes directly proportional to the tax collected.

    Education is done by formula – based on a 9 element matrix test that looks at the county’s ability to pay, a fiscal stress measure, etc.

    What the state does – is it agrees to provide a local match for Standards of Quality staffing positions.

    this is fairly minimal and all but the poorest counties in Va usually supplement substantial local funding to add other positions – which quite often are “extras” desired by the parents…. some would argue that they are more than “extras” but the State of Va only funds the minimum.

    All of this is expressed as a “Composite Index” that changes every year… and that index basically decides how much money a local county will receive from the state – and yes… counties like Fairfax will receive less than they paid…

    and yes.. one could say that education is subsidized… but what Groveton is talking about is not really the generic subsidy question but what he perceives as an inequitable subsidy that is not in proportion to the taxes collected.

    Don’t ya’ll think most States either do something along these lines for education or should if they do not?

    Groveton is big about hammering on the “old south” approach to race… massive resistance, et al…. and I would suggest that the State’s approach to ensuring access to an equivalent education is, in fact, a rejection of the old days of starkly different funding levels depending on whether the school was white or black… in composition….

    Virginia, in Groveton’s eyes is damned if they do and damned if they don’t… ehhh ???

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I looked into Satellite Broadband but the base station set up was expensive… How did you get it for only $50 a month?

    (My neighbor has Satellite Broadband, now if I could just get her to put in Wifi….)

    ———————————

    “they can charge the wazoo out of folks who use too much”

    Who decides who is using too much? I thought the deal was to inform the customer of the current rate based on costs to the supplier. How much you use at that rate is no ones business.

    If you believe in free markets. The way Larry wrote it up, it sounds like the real purpose is to control use, regardless of the actual cost to the supplier. (charge the wazoo…)

    RH

  28. Larry G Avatar

    "charge the wazoo" = tongue-in-cheek … what some folks will claim if we convert to a system where folks are charged according to how much it costs (both in terms of money AND pollution) to produce the power.

    "Free Markets" when it comes to pollution – are controlled – and that's the driving force behind using less electricity from high pollution sources and more electricity from low pollution sources.

    In a truly free market – we'd not have pollution controls at all – and wind & solar & tides would take decades…perhaps centuries to become competitive on a dollar-cost-only basis with coal – right?

    the wazoo comment was with respect to the implementation of Smart Meters which is the technology that will be needed when and if we begin charging according to time-of-day and usage or other parameters that will be set to reduce the use of coal-generated electricity.

    Smart Meters use broadband over power lines techniques.

    http://www.budde.com.au/Research/USA-Utilities-Broadband-Smart-Grids-Broadband-over-Power-Line-BPL.html

  29. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7DfdxjRkpU&feature=related

    Pollution?

    And how smart are those meters going to be when Grandpa Shaky fires up his Model T kilowatt CB?

  30. Larry G Avatar

    doing a little more research – broadband over power lines has…as they say … “issues” that seem not insubstantial… long story short – they were never designed to transmit “clean” signals… and they don’t and they can’t without quite a bit of redesign and tinkering…..

    however.. they apparently have a clean enough signal transmission capability to send/receive SOME data.. sufficient to provide smart meter functionality.

    In my recent travels, I have seen two separate residential satellite setups that seems to work just fine… and I believe the cost was about $60…

    but I also know folks who tried the satellite a few years ago and it was no go.

    so perhaps the technology has gotten better…

    as far as subsidized broadband.. I see the argument against it but would support it anyhow… at least on a school and library hook-up basis – but we’ve got to remember that in rural areas – access to a library or a school may be a formidable obstacle and we know right now that kids without access to the internet will be at a significant disadvantage against kids who do have access so my bottom line is that I view broadband like I do electricity and education… something we need to, as a society, agree to provide to all citizens…

    It’s easy to see the internet as a toy for those with time on their hands.. and it probably is… but it is also a major educational tool – ESPECIALLY for kids who live distant from their schools and libraries.

    Perhaps a compromise might be to provide internet to local community centers or perhaps rooms in Post Offices, etc.

  31. Larry G Avatar

    re: amateur radio interference

    yup….tis a fact…

    but whenever new technologies have come along.. we’ve often had issues with the frequencies…

    remember those signs about microwave ovens and heart pacemakers?

    I suspect that there is a way to shield BPL “noise” and perhaps a way to work around the other technical issues but it would require a lot of investment and it might be a risky investment if other broadband technologies ultimately can deliver equivalent service for less money…

    the growth of DSS … scooping up most of the rural and even poaching customers from cable-served locations… makes it a natural for bundled internet add-on…

    I’ve spent this spring several weeks traveling the rural areas of Georgia and SC/NC/Va and I’m totally impressed with the widespread use of “dishes” throughout the rural lands.

    Makes me wonder if those dishes are also present in numbers in places like rural China and other out-of-the-way places.

    I bet Groveton has some insight on this.

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “folks are charged according to how much it costs (both in terms of money AND pollution) to produce the power.”

    That’s as it should be. You won’t get any argument out of me on that.

    Where I have a problem is if people claim the costs of pollution are higher than they are, or the value of preventing pollution is higher than it is. We have some evidence as to what the values should be, but we need a lot more.

    I have a problem when people think the value of saving one life or one year of morbidity due to one cause is higher than the value of saving one life or one year of morbidity some other way.

    I have a problem when people think we shoudl spend x dollars to save certain lives, but they don’t think we can put a value on those lives.

    Then again, it is one thing to claim that people should be chared teh full cost of generating power plus the cost of pollution. It is something else again to say that the price should be set (arbirarily) high enough to make non-polluting sources competititive. If the argument is that we should pay for externalities, that’s one thing, but if the argument that paying for externalities isn’t enough unless it results in nonpolluting sources, then you just blew the first argument.

    Now you are arguing in favor of a subsidy, and hiding the fact behind the idea of paying the true cost of externalities.

    This is dishonest thinking.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "In a truly free market – we'd not have pollution controls at all – and wind & solar & tides would take decades…perhaps centuries to become competitive on a dollar-cost-only basis with coal – right?"

    That is why there are no free markets and why government has to play a role. It is also why that role must be unbiased. It is possible that polluting sources could pay their full external costs and non-polluting sources would still not be competititve.

    In a truly free market people would still be free not to buy from polluting sources. They would be free to set whatever value they choose on the cost of pollution. And, in a truly free market the cost of pollution would still be part of the cost of electricity, whether we pay for it in cash or not.

    In a truly free market you still have the same equation: Total cost of power = cost of generation + cost of pollution control + cost of damage from pollution. Nothing can change that.

    RH

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think the wazoo comment was indicative of what you really meant: people whouse power at the “wrong” time should be charged up the wazoo – even if it means raising the total cost of power higher than it needs to be.

    RH

  35. Larry G Avatar

    re: “Where I have a problem is if people claim the costs of pollution are higher than they are, or the value of preventing pollution is higher than it is.”

    how would you know?

    who would decide using what criteria?

    If someone else uses a criteria that you don’t like – does that mean it is wrong or dishonest – because you think it is?

    some folks believe that any mercury is too much because it causes known harm and it bio-accumulates… and we still don’t know everything we should about it’s longer term effects…

    I’m not sure how you’d ever reconcile the “what is too much or not too much” conundrum but I wouldn’t call either view – dishonest.

    It ends up being a judgment because this is no definitive and absolute answer.

    If the scientists in the EPA convince enough of Congress that coal generated electricity is too harmful and we should gradually shift to other technologies.. I would not call that process – “dishonest” even if it does not suit you.

  36. Groveton Avatar

    this is fairly minimal and all but the poorest counties in Va usually supplement substantial local funding to add other positions – which quite often are “extras” desired by the parents…. some would argue that they are more than “extras” but the State of Va only funds the minimum.

    There are no poor counties – only poor people. There are no rich counties – only rich people.

    The amount of money transferred as part of the SOL program is not inconsequential.

    If the state wants to supplement the education of poor people then that is what the state should do. The funds should be moved person by person based on economic need. Not county by county based on some half assed test. And the money for this transfer should be taken directly from the citizens as income tax not collected in a variety of opaque ways and the reallocated through a convoluted process that virtually nobody understands. Finally, there should be consequences for poor SOL performance. Schools that cannot achieve a certain SOL level should have their athletic programs discontinued. The time that is being spent playing and watching sporting events should be spent instead studying. There should be a parent participation score to go along with the SOL test score. Districts with poor SOL and parent participation score should fine the parents for failure to participate in their children’s education. You are expected to serve on juries why not have the same expectation for attending parent – teacher conferences? Schools which often miss their SOL minimums should be disbanded and the children bused to the closest school that does make the minimum. Or, school vouchers should be offered to parents in those districts so the parents can escape from the state sponsored educational incompetence.

    Oh yeah, I forgot – this isn’t about education it’s about wealth redistribution.

  37. Larry G Avatar

    Groveton –

    What is the purpose of State Income Taxes in ANY State?

    this is a general question about taxes in general.

    You don’t pay a “special” schools tax in Fairfax that then gets sent to Norton, Va nor do you pay a supplemental tax that goes to the Smith family in Norton.

    You pay taxes to the State – and the State – through a legislative process decides how to allocate those funds – throughout the state.

    some of your money may actually get spent to foster economic development in Norton – so they can get more jobs and eventually perhaps become more self-sufficient.

    I get confused about your position on this.

    Do you opposed the current methodology in general no matter whether you lived in Dallas or Orlando where you’d also pay income taxes to the State and the State would, through similar processes, allocate money to poorer jurisdictions?

    or are you opposed to the particular way that Va’s process works?

    are you opposed to the concept of States collecting taxes from across the state and spending it not in proportion to the geographical areas that generated it?

    with respect to educational incompetence…. you sound like you are a supporter, at least in concept, of NCLB, right?

    In other words, you want more accountability and sanctions for incompetence and failure.

    We’d agree on much of this but I think you ought to realize that some parents ..especially ones that grew up poor and uneducated are not going to be able to be effective advocates for their kids and that’s part of what I mean when I say..that kids born into disadvantageous parental circumstances – their only chance to succeed is a school that offers them a chance at a better education than their parents got.

    I bet if you look back into your family true, as most of us, at some point, your ancestors got a public education at some other taxpayers expense… and from that point on.. your family tree continued the tradition of more and better education….but it might never have happened unless..at some point..some of your family got access to a public education.

    so..yes.. public education is full of problems and it wastes gobs of money.. and it’s turned into a sort of a money-eating monster… that needs reform…. I agree but I’ll still take it over the alternative.

    I’m not opposed to vouchers – as long as they have to meet the same exact standards that public schools have to meet – and you know what? You have to ask yourself if those standards are the responsibility of government – or parents.

    What say you?

  38. Larry G Avatar

    FYI – here is an informative Power Point that further details how Virginia deals with funding education:

    http://www.vml.org/CONF/07CJamesCityCo/07ConfDocs/5%20VML%20-%20VA's%20Direct%20Aid.ppt

    you’ll have to dl it to your own presentation software but I found it pretty informative …especially the part that stated that Virginia REIMBURSES the locality for SOQ staffing positions actually employed as opposed to providing the money up-front for that purpose.

    that would indicate to me that there is a mechanism for enforcing a certain minimum local share… which if I remember correctly ..someone was claiming that jurisdictions reduce their own property taxes proportional to the amount of SOQ funding they get.

    But I’m still a bit puzzled by the specifics of the rancor.

    Are Groveton/TMT/others opposed to the CONCEPT of a State – including Virginia having a policy that explicitly seeks to use all collected monies to produce a minimally uniform statewide curriculum?

    or is the angst more related to the specific way that Va does this as opposed to how other states possibly do it?

    In other words.. we’re okay with the premise of the concept but we don’t like Virginia’s specific way of implementing it …or are we opposed to the basic concept of providing a statewide uniform curriculum?

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, I support using state tax money to ensure that school districts that: 1) make a reasonable effort to tax themselves; and 2) serve low income areas of the state, can provide a standard set of courses for children.

    What I cannot abide is subsidizing much lower real estate taxes for districts, rich or poor, that don’t make a reasonable effort to tax themselves; and the elected buffoons and business leaders (make that clowns) from Fairfax County who permit this to occur. The Mark Warner – John Chichester tax increase (that most of the elected buffoons and business clowns from Fairfax County supported) took about $107 million from Fairfax County and sent back about $7 million to the schools. Later, about 20 plus jurisdictions around Virginia were able to reduce local support for their schools.

    I have a rule of thumb, when both the Washington Post and the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce support something, it’s usually a disaster for Fairfax County.

    TMT

  40. Groveton Avatar

    TMT:

    LarryG is in denial. In his mind the state taxes fairly pays for all base education costs. Municipalities then suppliment the base tax with local taxes that are for “frills”. This is quintessential bullshit. It is the kind of mindless tripe that RoVa politicians try to foist on the voters of NoVa with the willfull cowardice of NoVa’s own elected officials. When the tax hike that TMT mentions was put into affect dozens of localities reduced their local contribution while increasing the state – wide contribution. Did these localities simultaneously decide that they needed fewer frills while incurring more base? Of course not. Did Henrico County really need to reduce their own contribution in favor of more state contribution at the expense of a reversed situation in Prince William County out of fairness? Of course not.

    This is a scam – pure and simple. It is wealth distribution – pure and simple. And the same pseudo Republicans who claim that wealth transfer is wrong under Obama are only too happy to accept the same when it comes compliments of the Republican Party of Virginia. These same pseudo – Republicans twaddle on and on about “core values” and ideology. In fact, they are less consistent in their philosophy than Teddy Kennedy ever was. And the Dermocrats who cry for change we can live with should be squealing for business as usual – since that’s just what they are practicing.

    McAulliffe is the only candidate who might have a chance to break the cesspool of business as usual in Richmond.

  41. Larry G Avatar

    I'm hearing accusations guys but I'm not seeing references…

    here's a reference:

    http://www.apa.state.va.us/data/download/local_government/comparative_cost/Cost08.XLS

    full of info about localities finances including money received from the state and money allocated for education.

    It looks like the kind of thing that Groveton once talked about putting together on a web site.

    Take a look at it and tell me what you think…

    it may well back up the assertions.. so go check it out.

    No.. Larry is not in denial.. he's asking.. is it the concept that is wrong or the implementation….

    say… Groveton.. aren't you the one who was originally enamored of Obama but then changed your mind..???

    are you sure about McAulliffe?

    He strikes me a the consummate pol… smoke-filled rooms.. glad handing the rubes… etc,

    besides isn't he one of those tax & spenders?

  42. Larry G Avatar

    ….” It is the kind of mindless tripe that RoVa politicians try to foist on the voters of NoVa with the willfull cowardice of NoVa’s own elected officials.”

    and you want this same cowardly group to carry the home-rule banner for NoVa ???

    Why do ya’ll bother to have elections up there if all your candidates are going to give away to store to RoVa anyhow?

    tell me again.. how ya’ll decide which candidates to support?

    Sounds like an elected government is not ya’lls forte.

    I dunno Groveton.. sometimes you’re a stitch!

  43. Groveton Avatar

    LarryG Suddenly goes into “Brian Moran mode” trying to stick a y’all into every other sentence to prove his Southerness. LarryG does have the benefit of not having a thick Boston accent while he tries to confirm his southern credentials (at least not in the words he writes, perhaps in the thoughts but not the words).

    I still think Obama was a better candidate than McCain. However, I think he could be a better president than he is. How do we decide which candidates to support? We pick the better candidate. As for “up there” – half the people I see at work in Fairfax County are from Fredricksburg and they all seem to have moved there from “up here”. So, tell me again about how Fredericksburg is really Montgomery, AL in disguise.

    If there were home rule then it would matter as much what the politicians from either party in the state legislature thought. That’s because they wouldn’t have all the power. I am not anti-politician, I am not anti-RoVa, I am anti-Virginia state legislature because they consolidate too much power in too opaque a way.

    And before you go too far asking how we vote “up here”, let me repeat your insightful and issue oriented analysis of the upcoming governor’s election:

    “He strikes me a the consummate pol… smoke-filled rooms.. glad handing the rubes… etc,”.

    For a somewhat more detailed look at the race (based on hearing the candidates speak) – look here:

    http://grovetonsvirginia.wordpress.com/

    The article may lack the deep analysis and pithiness of:

    “He strikes me a the consummate pol… smoke-filled rooms.. glad handing the rubes… etc,”.

    but it’s the best that one of us “up here” can do.

  44. Larry G Avatar

    touché!

    oh… and on the local government spreadsheet – look for Exhibit I –

    COMPARATIVE REPORT
    Demographic and Tax Data
    For the Year Ended June 30, 2008

    now I’m off to Groveton’s Blog to bath myself in his rich and pithy analyses…

    😉

  45. Larry G Avatar

    ….” He reminded those who say that they don’t want to pay for NoVa roads that NoVa probably doesn’t want to pay for other regions’ schools. He promised to dillute the Dillon Rule.”

    oh man….

    Now I see why Groveton likes this guy.

    Groveton – do you know what the term RUBE means?

    Give McAulliffe credit.. he has someone on his staff who knows how to spin NoVa Shtick but gawd o’mighty Groveton.. surely you don’t believe this tripe………………………………………

    do you?

    geeze man.. I thought you were erudite or something…..

  46. Larry G Avatar

    Groveton…Groveton…

    “McAuliffe said that if he served as governor no jurisdiction surrounding Virginia would have a higher average salary than those paid Virginia teachers at the end of his four-year term. Maryland now pays teachers $60,000 a year. Virginia’s average salary is about $46,000.”

    http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/state_regional/article/candidates_promise_va._teachers_pay_raises/15438/

    this is what your guy sez when get goes off the NoVa Ranch…

    question: – where do you think he is going to get the money to pay those higher salaries – across the State?

    can you say “State Funding”?

    okay..now the money question:

    Where do you think he will get the additional “State Funding”?

    wrong answer: RoVa

  47. Groveton Avatar

    Larry:

    When I wrote, “I have not decided who I will support.”, what did you think that might mean? I hear a lot of the politics as usual crowd (from state legislators to newspeople to regular bloggers) trying to write off Terry Mcauliffe as a carpetbagger, political novice, political junkie (I never said these people were consistent), etc. I think that’s a mistake. The people who write him off never seem willing to challenge his stand on the issues – only his persona as a northern democratic fundraiser. In fact, he’s lived in Virginia for 17 years – which seems long enough to me and his ability to raise funds for Democrats probably puts him in good stead with the people who have all the money right now – President Obama, his cabinet and Congress. I struggle to understand why this is a liability in a state that desperately needs the US federal government’s support. I’ve heard all four of the candidates speak and the only one addressing issues of substance is Terry McAuliffe. You may not like what he’s saying but, at least, he’s saying something. I can give McDonnell a pass right now because he doesn’t face anybody in the primary. But Moran and Deeds are both basically trying to get the nomination in a beauty contest. His Business Plan for Virginia addresses the same questions as Jim Bacon’s famous Economy 2.0. He just published the fifth chapter – on transportation. So, he has energy, business development, economic security, education and transportation on his web site. As far as I know, you get the same web site and the same business plan regardless of your location. He’s writing a consistent message – whether you like the message or not. Perhaps you should read his business plan before you dismiss him as a consummate pol who lives in smoke filled back rooms.

    As for the teacher salary comment – it’s in his written education plan. Let’s assume that there are 100,000 teachers in Virginia. And let’s assume (your assumption) that we want to bring the average salary from $46,000 to $60,000 (McAuliffe never said he’d match Maryland – that was invented by you). That’s $1.4B per year. McAuliffe also said that aggressively licensing the intellectual property from Virginia’s public universities. I’ve personally licensed intellectual property from California universities. My company wrote them checks. This works. He’s right. And none of Virginia’s universities have anything like Berkeley’s IP program or Stanford’s SRI (yes, I know Stanford is private). I work in Reston and get calls from California and North Carolina and Mass. universities all the time. Until 3 years ago I never got a single call from a Virgina based university. Lately, one professor at UVA has reached out to us. Guess what? I funded some co-research there (despite my misgivings about the university overall – it was a business decision). But UVA doesn’t have the program to license IP that Berkeley has. Not even close. In California, the universities hold regular conferences to describe the IP that has been developed to the venture capita community. In fact, you really should real McAuliffe’s business plan section on business development. He’s not only right he’s miles and miles and miles ahead of the other candidates.

    Larry – read his business plan and then tell me he isn’t worthy of consideration as governor. Note that I don’t say worthy of your vote, just of your consideration.

    Frankly, your comments represent “median strip politics” at its worst. You unfairly stereotype a candidate without taking the time to understand his perspectives as clearly defined on his public web site. I expect better from a person who puts in hours and hours on Virginia political blogs. Read his business plan then tell me – based on the issues – why Terry McAuliffe should be dismissed as a candidate.

  48. Larry G Avatar

    yup.. I like him too…!!!

    but Groveton:

    what part of:

    "McAuliffe said that if he served as governor no jurisdiction surrounding Virginia would have a higher average salary than those paid Virginia teachers at the end of his four-year term. Maryland now pays teachers $60,000 a year. Virginia’s average salary is about $46,000."

    http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/state_regional/article/candidates_promise_va._teachers_pay_raises/15438/

    is not a direct quote of said candidate?

    I didn't make it up.. I quoted him verbatim…

    basically he's implying if not stating outright that we're going to spend more on education and more on transportation and we're going to get the money from growing the economy?

    no?

    Sounds a lot like what Warner and Kaine said …but when the economy failed to produce …they at least had the good sense to not go for huge tax increases….

    so.. you have a candidate who is promising a bright future based on fairly optimistic ideas about Virginia's economy…

    what happens if the economy does not generate the additional revenues?

    does he live with it.. or does he go the tax&spend route?

    I would posit that a lot of this will not ride on him but rather the same-election composition of the GA.

    If the GA House stays in Republican hands.. Terry will not be raising taxes… no matter what the economy does or does not do….

    right?

    by the way.. I love his idea of producing energy from chicken poop… it seems so very, very appropriate from a politicians perspective…

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “how would you know?

    who would decide using what criteria?”

    If you don’t know, how do you decide how much money to spend? somebody is making that decsion using some criteria, as it stands now. Let’s make them public, transparent, and accountable.

    One way you know is by measuring the changes. Changes in atmospheric conditions and changes in respriatory problems, for example. You will wind up with a lot of different measures, different results, and different costs, but eventuwlly they begin to make a database that you can rank and sort.

    We do this sort of thing all the time, we just need to be better at it, and more transparent. Insurance companies do it all the time.

    If it WAS more transparent then you would not have to ask “how would you know?

    who would decide using what criteria?”

    One way to make it more transparent is to use government intervention to create markets in externalities that can be bought and sold. Then, everbody decides and the market is the criteria.

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “some folks believe that any mercury is too much “

    They re welcom to believe whatever they want. They believe there should be an infinite price on mercury pollution. But they do not have the right to impose their “beliefs” on someone else anymore than they have the right to impose their religion on someone else.

    Some of those same people may believe in capital punishment, which involves the use of a mercury compound. I don’t know what they do about the fact that mercury occurs naturally in nature. If any contamination is too much, should we mine all the Cinnabar and shoot it into space? should we eliminate dental fillings? Batteries, and all the other uses of mercury, such as lab instruments, special paint coatings, fluorescent bulbs, and severazl thousand other uses?

    About half of antropogenic mercury releases come from the use of mercury in s osme product. The other half comes as a result of combustion of materials that contain naturally occurring mercury. Another way Mercury reaches the environment is through land disposal of sewage treatment plant sludge, the sewage treatment plant itself being an effective bioaccumulator and concentrator.

    The EPA suggests that 0.3 ug/m3 (micro-grams per cubic meter of air) of mercury is a no-effect level for chronic inhalation exposure. So these people have a much higher standard than the EPA suggests.

    They are entitled to believe whatever they like, but they are not entitled to cause undue harm to someone else in the process: their rights end where someone else’s property begins. Right now, the EPA contends that a claim based on exposure less that .3 mirograms per cubic meter would be unfounded because that is a “no effect” level.

    From a most valuable social consequences point of view we would allow concentrations somewhat higher than that because the cost of keeping concentrations too low has adverse cost consequences: you start stepping on someone else’s property if you set the allowable uses lower than the cost of damages from those uses.

    Total cost = cost of manufacturing product with Mercury + cost of preventing mercury contamination + cost of mercury contamination that is not prevented. The best idea is to minimize total cost, not minimize the amount of mercury contamination, despite what some beople “believe”. In fact, tehy cannot believe that, unless they also think they have more rights than other people, and those rights allow them to steal.

    As you say, “How would you know, who decides?” Well that’s a problem, but we can’t let the people who think any level is too high decide. Otherwise, pretty soon no one will be allowed to do anything. We will all be living with the Environmental Taliban rapping on our shop windows, telling us it is time to close up for the five times daily prayers to Gaia.

    If you think that is over the top, consider that the FBI has an eco-terrorist on the most wanted list.

    But, the users also do not get to decide the “best value” because they also have no reason to consider other people’s rights. There is a best balance between competing rights and competing costs, and we know how to find it.

    Some people just refuse to “believe” the facts at hand: they prefer to pick and choose in order to gain some unfairl advantage.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If someone else uses a criteria that you don’t like – does that mean it is wrong or dishonest – because you think it is?”

    Look at the equation.

    The criteria is to get the lowest total cost. Any solution that does not achieve the total lowest cost means that one side is getting excess benefit at the expense of the other side. That is both wrong and dishonest. It is the exact mathematical representation of your idea that other people’s rights end where your property begins.

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Now,if you think my comments about lowest total cost are off the wall, just consider the situtation with compcat Fluorescents. As the energy department points out, something that its perfect but unaffordable does not suit the public interests. And that is the problem with those that think there shoud be no pollution, no mercury pollution or that no one has the right to pollute: they are promoting a “perfect solution” that is unaffordable and does not meet the pbulic interest. it can only be achieved by stealing from someone else.

    “Compact fluorescents once cost as much as $30 apiece. Now they go for as little as $1 — still more than regular bulbs, but each compact fluorescent is supposed to last 10 times longer, save as much as $5.40 a bulb each year in electricity, and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from burning coal in power plants.

    Much of the credit for that sharp cost decline goes to the Energy Department. The agency asked manufacturers in 1998 to create cheaper models and then helped find large-volume buyers, like universities and utilities, to buy them. That jump-started a mass market and eventually led to sales of discounted bulbs at retailers like Costco, Wal-Mart Stores and Home Depot.

    Consumers are supposed to be able to protect themselves by buying bulbs certified under the government’s Energy Star program. But experts and some environmental groups complain that Energy Star standards are weak, permitting low-quality bulbs with too high a level of mercury, a toxic metal contained in all compact fluorescents.

    “The standard essentially establishes a floor, which sorts out the junk, with the expectation that the rest is good,” Mr. Siminovitch said. “It’s not.”

    The government, which will begin enforcing tighter specifications this year, says it must seek a balance between quality and affordability to achieve its goal of getting millions of additional consumers to install the bulbs.

    “Something that is perfect but not affordable wouldn’t serve the broad interests,” said Peter Banwell, the Energy Department’s manager of product marketing for Energy Star. “

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/business/energy-environment/28bulbs.html?_r=1

    RH

  53. Larry G Avatar

    “The criteria is to get the lowest total cost.”

    “Look at the equation.”

    That inputs to that equation change.

    they change as we discover we over or underestimated things …and we find this out over time…like we did with many substances that we initially believed were safe and as time went by found out that they were not.

    It pretty much describes many of the currently outlawed substances that initially were thought to have “less cost”.

    “too much mercury” vs ” not enough mercury” is for most folks a bone-headed concept.

    most folks think more in terms of if a substance is toxic and ends up making fish unsafe to eat that there is “too much”.

    Other folks like yourself apparently don’t believe that having fish unsafe to eat is the correct criteria …that instead.. we must trade off the benefits of cheaper electricity with the loss of fish safe to eat.

    Like I said..most folks don’t think this way…

    if we did.. we’d still allow DDT because we’d believe that the loss of Eagles would be worth getting rid of the diseases that DDT rid of us.

    Lucky for most of us, we don’t approach these things with an equation with cost as the ultimately deciding factor.

    Because if you used cost alone – you could never justify actions to insure that we still have eagles … we’d just scratch off anything that has as inferior dollar value.

    Like I asked you before… what is the cost-benefit of a titanium hip joint for an 80-year old.

    In your equation – it would not be allowed because there is no dollar value benefit to an 80-year old continuing to be able to walk.. and if you can’t put a dollar value on it in your equation.. then it fails to meet the cost-benefit.

    surely you can see where your approach has flaws RH….

    Having signs posted on every major in Virginia – warning people not to eat the fish – is not inconsequential even if we cannot put a dollar cost on it.

    so you can have your equation but filling in the blanks is not so easy and if you fill in the blanks by wild-ass guesses that’s not science nor economic but tom foolery.

  54. Groveton Avatar

    McAuliffe is not my candidate. He’s just a candidate that I think should be taken seriously – along with Deeds and McDonnell. Frankly, I am just about ready to write off Moran as a candidate I’d consider. It seems that the Moran Clan is back to their usual dirty tricks.

    McAuliffe has a significant issue with regard to where he’ll get the money for his programs. That question has to be addressed and addressed soon or he’ll fall off my list. However, I give him great credit for having a lot of good ideas and being willing to put those ideas in writing. Now, when he says we’ll have to have an honest discussion about revenue in his transportation plan I assume he wants to raise the gas tax. I wish he’d just come out and say that.

    As for the GA – I agree. The Republicans definitely stymied Gov. Kaine (although he is looking more and more mediocre anyway). There’s an election in 2009 that will affect the next governor and another in 2011. I think the 2011 election will be based on the new districts drawn as a result of the 2010 census (I don’t know that but I think it’s correct). So, a Democratic governor elected in 2009 might get a second chance at a favorable GA in 2011.

    As for the Maryland quote – LarryG is right and I am wrong. I saw the same quote and misread it as saying that teacher salaries had to increase to the level of surrounding jurisdiction and then giving Maryland as an example. In fact, as LarryG clarifies, Terry McAuliffe said he’d raise techer salaries to the same level of any surrounding jurisdiction and then used Maryland as an example. If he did that, teachers in SW Virginia would make a lot of money relative to teachers just over the border in WVA (for example). I guess good teachers near the border would want to move to VA.

  55. Larry G Avatar

    Here's a sobering perspective on broadband for poor regions:

    Cutline: "One Internet Village, Divided: In Developing Countries, Web Grows Without Profit"

    excerpts:

    One Internet Village, Divided: In Developing Countries, Web Grows Without Profit

    Facebook is booming in Turkey and Indonesia. YouTube’s audience has nearly doubled in India and Brazil.

    That may seem like good news. But it is also a major reason these and other Web companies with big global audiences and renowned brands struggle to turn even a tiny profit.

    Web companies that rely on advertising are enjoying some of their most vibrant growth in developing countries. But those are also the same places where it can be the most expensive to operate, since Web companies often need more servers to make content available to parts of the world with limited bandwidth. And in those countries, online display advertising is least likely to translate into results.

    This intractable contradiction has become a serious drag on the bottom lines of photo-sharing sites, social networks and video distributors like YouTube. It is also threatening the fervent idealism of Internet entrepreneurs, who hoped to unite the world in a single online village but are increasingly finding that the economics of that vision just do not work.

    Last year, Veoh, a video-sharing site operated from San Diego, decided to block its service from users in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe, citing the dim prospects of making money and the high cost of delivering video there.

    “I believe in free, open communications,” Dmitry Shapiro, the company’s chief executive, said. “But these people are so hungry for this content. They sit and they watch and watch and watch. The problem is they are eating up bandwidth, and it’s very difficult to derive revenue from it.”

    Internet start-ups that came of age during the Web 2.0 era, roughly from 2004 to the beginning of the recession at the end of 2007, generally subscribed to a widely accepted blueprint: build huge global audiences with a free service, and let advertising pay the bills.

    But many of them ran smack into global economic reality. There may be 1.6 billion people in the world with Internet access, but fewer than half of them have incomes high enough to interest major advertisers.

    “Whenever you have a lot of user-generated material, your bandwidth gets utilized in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, where bandwidth is expensive and ad rates are ridiculously low,” Mr. Volpi said. If Web companies “really want to make money, they would shut off all those countries.”

    Few Internet companies have taken that drastic step, but many are exploring other ways to increase revenue or cut costs in developing countries.

    “We may choose to set a limit to how much we are willing to pay in bandwidth cost,” Mr. Pickett said. In some countries, he said, “there may be particular peak times where instead of high definition, we might decrease the resolution.”

    The Facebook social network is also considering lowering the quality of videos and photographs delivered to some regions in an effort to reduce expenses.

    “We can decide, either on a country by country or user by user basis, to engineer the quality of the service for that cohort of users,” said Jonathan Heiliger, the executive who oversees Facebook’s computing infrastructure.

    Facebook is in a particularly difficult predicament. Seventy percent of its 200 million members live outside the United States, many in regions that do not contribute much to Facebook’s bottom line. At the same time, the company faces the expensive prospect of storing 850 million photos and eight million videos uploaded to the site each month.

    “The part of me that wants to change the world says, ‘This is unfair, it shouldn’t be like this,’ ” Mr. Shapiro said. “On the other hand, from the business side of things, serving videos to the entire world is just not supportable at this time.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/technology/start-ups/27global.html?_r=1&hpw

    I have to admit.. I had not considered this aspect. I was thinking that we provide broadband to the poorer areas and the folks would use it to educate themselves and perhaps set up web-based; businesses (like the rural-based company that I just bought some mondo grass from in George).

    But unless you do something to restrict content – the reality is that while Johnny might be researching his book report… gramps is leering at the young things photos in facebook or whatever…

    so Johnny uses a tiny bit of bandwidth to maximum advantage in his own case ….. while gramps uses a huge amount of bandwidth.. also to his own advantage .. which probably has little or not value economically and, in fact, translates into a loss for the company providing the bandwidth as illustrated in the NYT article.

    Question: are we going to see rural broadband that lacks the rich content of urban broadband?

    i.e. – the kid in Grundy can research with Wiki but FaceBook is not available to him nor Gramps…????

    thoughts?

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “we cannot put a dollar cost on it.”

    It is not easy and yet we do it all the time.

    In fact, if we enact a policy that costs money, then we have just put a dollar cost on whatever social benefit it is supposed to provide.

    The next time we come up with some other policy that costs twice as much for a similar beenfit, we ought to at least know as much.

    But as long as we have people with your attitude we wil never be abel to make rational or informed decisions.

    The equation is what it is, and it is always correct. Whether we know, or want to know, what numbers to fill in is up to us. But the only reason not to want to know is if we figure our side is somehow “ahead” of the game, and we might have to give up something if the facts are known. Ipso facto, this implies we are stealing from someone, somewhere.

    ———————–

    “Because if you used cost alone – you could never justify actions to insure that we still have eagles … “

    Why would you say that? Eagles have a value, just like anything else, but that value is not infinite: if you are hungry and the only thing to eat is an eagle, guess what is going to happen….

    ————————

    “Like I asked you before… what is the cost-benefit of a titanium hip joint for an 80-year old.”

    Like I told you before,I don’t know the answer, but there are people who figure such things out. The ususal standard for a heart bypass for example, is that it isn’t “worth it” if the prognosis is less than a thre year survival.

    The point is that you WILL put a price on whatever we do and don’t do, whether it is explicit or implicit. We may as well do our best to understand what the price is.

    The trade off for that hip may be ten thousand flu vaccinations for young children, and if that is the case then we should at least know.

    —————————–

    “we must trade off the benefits of cheaper electricity with the loss of fish safe to eat.”

    It isn’t that you must, but that you will make that trade off, no matter where you set the trade. You can deny it, or claim it is immaterial because the value of fish is so high, but you are still making the trade.

    The usual way to make a trade is to have a market, that is how we discover what people really think the fish are worth, and what they really think electricity is worth.

    Again, you seem to think that I am on the other side, and I’m not. I think the market will pay more for clean fish, and I don’t understand why anyone who calls themselves an environmentalist would be opposed to discovering the correct price to pay.

    Personally, I’m willing to pay more for a cleaner enviroment, and I do. I don’t necessarily think that the charges are fair, but I don’t get to set the price. We need a market for that. We are going to get SOME kind of market and we WILL pay the price for whatever we get. We may as well recognize and accept how it works and try to negotiate the lowest possible costs in order taht we can accomplish the most amount of good.

    RH

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “That inputs to that equation change.”

    The equation never changes. for anything you can think of, Total cost = Cost of Production + Cost of Pollution Control + Costs of Damage from Pollution not Controlled.

    Does that mean thet the lowest Total Cost might mean different things at different times and places?

    Sure. It is worth it to spend more on air pollution control where a lot of people live, but if they suddenly move away, because of flooding or volcano or something, then that expense is no longer justified. The cost of damage from pollution has gone down.

    —————————-

    “like we did with many substances that we initially believed were safe and as time went by found out that they were not.”

    Right. Because we did not have the correct market mechanism. For some substances we probably still don’t.

    ——————-

    “”too much mercury” vs ” not enough mercury” is for most folks a bone-headed concept.”

    Correct. It is bone headed. Mercury is neither created nor destroyed. We have exactly as much of it today as we had 300 million years ago. how do you suppose all that mercury got in the coal? it was incorporated in the bodies of all the critters that became coal, that’s how.

    The only question we have to contend with is how we get the most use we can out of the three or four thousancd commercial uses for mercury as we can, with the least amount of damange. We can choose zero damage if we wish, but we cannot claim to do that at no cost.

    We can pretty much add up the value of all those three thousand industries and know what the cost of eliminating them is. Then we could examine how many fewer people get sick from mercury poisoning and find out what the value of a “mercury free” economy is.

    Then we have a benchmark. If we later figure out that a Cadmium free ecomoy would cost us fifty times as much, then maybe we take on some other priority instead – one that costs less and allows us to do more.

    RH

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Robert Samuelson in the WaPo casts a skeptical eye over the green economy: “The selling of the green economy involves much economic make-believe. Environmentalists not only maximize the dangers of global warming–from rising sea levels to advancing tropical diseases–they also minimize the costs of dealing with it.”

    In other words, they are attempting to set th eprices wrong, in order to promote their own agenda. in the proces they are losing credibility.

    This can’t be good for either the environment or the environmental agenda, but most environmentalists are so wrapped up in their own rhetoric they can no longer see that the REASON we want a clean environment is to maximise the profits from it.

    RH

    RH

  59. Larry G Avatar

    re: “The equation is what it is, and it is always correct. “

    was it correct BEFORE when it said that DDT was cost effective or is it correct AFTER we decided it was not?

    You’ve got this dumb equation and it means nothing because the inputs to it can and do change…. and the values of those inputs can and often are, in dispute.

    so many things.. we don’t know that we start out with an input to your equation that says xx.xx and 10 years later it is 100xx.xx and the cost-effectiveness aspect goes to hell in a hand-basket.

    If you can’t tell me what is cost-effective for a titanium hip replacement..how can you presume to know the correct calculation for mercury in the environment?

    if your equation and it’s results were so simple… you could answer the cost effectiveness question easily for just about anything.

    I don’t know where you learned about equations – but you are in desperate need of a refresher course.

    It’s not the equation guy – it’s the values that get plugged into it.

    and that’s why .. for 50 years..lead in gasoline is acceptable and on the 51st ..using the same equation.. lead in gasoline is no longer acceptable.

    this is the same reason why we can find Mercury emissions.. for 50 years.. acceptable.. and next year.. using your same equation.. decide that it is no longer.

    what exactly have you proved with your foolish equation other than the fact that you really don’t understand how it works in the first place?

  60. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ” your foolish equation “

    It is not my equation. The equation IS how it works. It is widely used and accepted throughout the environmental community, just as expressed by the efollowing quote:

    “Something that is perfect but not affordable wouldn’t serve the broad interests,” said Peter Banwell, the Energy Department’s manager of product marketing for Energy Star. “

    which is exactly what the equation works out to. If you think it is silly, show me where it can possibly be wrong. It is the criteria for setting policy that gets the most green and the most dollars for th emost people without stealing.

    I’m in favor of green but I’m opposed to stealing to get it. This is the key equation for setting policy. Even if you consciously decide to set a less than optimal total cost because you want more green than justified, at least this equation will tell you how much you are stealing, and what you are getting for your efforts.

    It isn’t that things went to hell in a handbasket, the equation was still correct. The problem was that we did not have the correct market in place to send the right price signals. As a result we got the price wrong, we fixed the situation and moved on.

    What we learn from this is not that there is no correct price, but there is a correct price and it is worthwhile to shop for it carefully.

    ———————————

    “was it correct BEFORE when it said that DDT was cost effective or is it correct AFTER we decided it was not?”

    Both. The equation is ALWAYS correct. We had one total cost before DDT was banned and another TOTAL cost AFTER it was banned. In neither case was the cost zero. We STILL don’t know if we got the lowest possible cost, but that wasn’t the goal, the goal was to ban DDT no matter what the cost. The equation still holds true.

    Plug whatever values you like into it, the total costs are still the sum of the three values. If you ban producton then the cost of producton goes to zero (along with the value of production) and the cost of damage form pollution not prevented goes to zero. The only thing that is left is the cost of preventing pollution, which is not zero.

    Before you banned production you must have had some damage from polution not prevented,otherwise you would have no reason to act. And youmust have some idea what the damage was. After the ban you have prevented that damage and you know what that prevention cost.

    Now you have a benchmark. With enough of them you can evenetually figur out what a hip replacement or an asthma attack is worth. (An average hip replacement costs between 31 and 44 thousand dollars. Whether it is WORTH that much is another matter). So for this case the Total cost is the cost of the hip replacement + the cost of preventing loss of mobility + the cost of whatever mobility is lost in spite of the hip replacement. The concept of mobility has an element of time and an element of quality, and both of these are likely to be less for an 80 year old, but those are values that can be quantified.

    The cost of the replacement is more or less the same at whatever age but the total cost varies (because of the quality and time the result obtains) , and you could pretty easily draw a curve tha shows total cost(value) as a function of age.

    Like I say, it isn’t my business, but this sort of thing is done all the time.

    Back to the DDT problem. We had some costs of pollution that was not prevented. We can put a very high price on that cost, and that will make the total cost seem very high. Then when we ban DDT the new total cost goes way down- no production costs and no pollution costs. We have found a better solution, but we have not invalidated the equation.

    But along with eliminating the cost of DDT production we lost the beneficial uses of DDT (if any). Now, remember we already counted the costs of pollution, we don’t get to count that twice, by saying the beneficial uses were also damaging. All we are counting here is the value of eliminating mosquitos. And how do we value that? We value it by the lives saved. And what value do we use for that? The same value as we used when calculating the cost of damage from DDT pollution, obviously. So if we put a very high price on that we also put a very high value on the beneficial uses of DDT.

    Therefore,you can put any value you like on human life, as long as you are consistent about it. In the end all that matters is whether DDT killed or injured more people and critters than it saved. I agree with you that for DDT the answer SEEMS pretty clear, and we now have a lower total cost than before, although some people will argue the point.

    They are correct on one thing: it is POSSIBLE that a total ban did not give us the lowest possible total cost, no matter how high you set the original cost of damage. As long as no one independent is looking, we won’t know.

    In studying things like this we know that there is a Sentinal Effect, or a Hawthorne Effect. Whatever result is obtained is likely to be better if a neutral third party is observing the process. I think we can agree that when it came to hysteria over DDT, no one was neutral: Rachel Carson did an excellent job of seeing to that.

    ——————————–

    “and that’s why .. for 50 years..lead in gasoline is acceptable and on the 51st ..using the same equation.. lead in gasoline is no longer acceptable.

    this is the same reason why we can find Mercury emissions.. for 50 years.. acceptable.. and next year.. using your same equation.. decide that it is no longer.”

    In both of those cases the equation worked: we decided that we would have a lower total cost by banning certain uses.

    Notice that we did not ban ALL uses. The examles you give are examples of the process at work,not examples of failure in the equation.

    The total costs wil ALWAYS equal the sum of the costs plus the sum of the benefits (negative costs) whether we are ignorant as to what they are or not.

    All I’m suggesting is that we be more honest and less ignorant.

    We will get better results for everyone sonner than we will by following the usual pigheaded prescriptions.

  61. Larry G Avatar

    “All I’m suggesting is that we be more honest and less ignorant. “

    we do this – all the time – right now:

    one year the equation says it’s okay to have lead in gasoline and the next year, new data changes the inputs and then the equation says that it’s no longer cost effective.

    and yes.. we do have total bans of some chemicals.. that used to be allowed… happens all the time…

    the equation is not static, never was and never will be.

    When the inputs changes due to new information not previously known when a chemical was originally introduce… it can and does result in further restrictions and sometimes total bans.

    the argument has been and will always be… how much the harm costs… or could cost.. when we don’t have ways to accurately measure.

    people who make money by polluting are invariable opposed to restricting it because the “value” they see is a benefit to them… and in their minds – the perceived harm is overblown.

    That’s the framework of the discussion right now on mercury in the environment.

    What you cannot plug into your equation is the value of not being able to eat fish without suffering non-deadly impacts that range from a loss of IQ for SOME folks but not others, or damage to SOME fetuses but not others, etc.

    there is no easy way to sit down and figure out the dollar cost to the loss of IQ for a whole generation of kids.

    but we had this same situation with lead in gasoline and lead in paints – did we not?

    and we had the same back and forth discussion about it before it was finally banned.

    In your mind.. we didn’t need to argue about it..just plug it in to the equation.

    The flaw in your reasoning is that you often don’t have complete nor accurate or precision data at the beginning – but you gather it over time and the equation is never static.

    In many cases, the evidence mounts and mounts until the ban, once considered not necessary is instituted as necessary.

    there is no hysteria on the part of many who support bans – only a disagreement with folks like you on whether or not the current harm is “worth it”.

    that’s not dishonest on their part at all…

    and no more or less “hysterical” than someone saying something like we have no choice but to pollute because we must breathe – or that we are entitled to pollute and we must pay people not to pollute…and a bunch of other stuff if not “hysterical” certainly just as bad.

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I suggested that market forces could help resolve conflicting claims among urban, agricultural and environmental interests to an enviro person. This is their response:

    ‘Using market forces, transfers, means to me privatizing it. According to the public trust doctrine, water belongs to everyone and it is the duty of the state to allocate it to benefit the public.

    The giant agribusiness interests in the San Joaquin Valley have been working hard for many years to blur the ownership rights in order to market their water to the cities, at enormous profit. It is easier and more profitable to market their water than to grow crops. Water has belonged to us all. Historically we have not paid for water, but for the facilities, O & M, needed to get it to us. Big Ag wants to change all the rules and have persuaded some, even in the environmental community, that transfers and market forces should rule.'

    So, no, they are not interested in using market forces since it's not right to charge for it (water, in this case).

    Bottom Line: This perspective is hopeless. Whenever the supply of something is less than the demand for that thing (land, bananas, BMWs, blood, etc.), the price of that thing will rise — one way or another — until demand and supply are equal. Those who want to avoid market forces will pay the price in waiting, lawsuits, fighting, bribes, etc. “Professor David Zeitland,
    Aquanomics Blog.

    [emphasis mine]

    Your position is as hopeless as that of C-WIN (CA Water Impact network). “As competition grows for our water resources, there are those who would sell water that belongs to all of the people to the highest bidder, for personal profit. They believe that the market should decide how to allocate this resource for its highest and best use. However, many, including C-WIN, believe this publicly owned resource should remain in public hands, and that it is the job of the state to allocate water to meet the needs of all the people and the environment.”

    If government sets up the rules that ALLOW a market to exist, then the market will determine efficient prices. there will be prices mutually agreed on and therfore there can be no dishonesty in how the prices are “set”.

    —————————-

    “one year the equation says it’s okay to have lead in gasoline and the next year, new data changes the inputs and then the equation says that it’s no longer cost effective.”

    You are not reading the equation right. This particular equation says NOTHING about whether a policy is cost effective or not.

    It just tells you the cost of the current condition. It is just as correct before the ban on DDT as after: there are two sets of conditions and two costs associated.

    Had we filled in the equation properly before the ban on DDT was instituted we would have seen that the costs were high and achieved th ecurrent conditon soone and at lower cost.

    The only thing we can tell from this equation is whether the new condition is lower in total cost than the last condition. It tells us nothing about what set of conditions will result in the lowest cost.

    However, it is ONLY when the lowest cost is achieved that we can be certain that one party is not taking advantage of another.

    Before, we had no ban on DDT and we assumed we had a handle on the costs – no one looked to see if we were right, until a problem developed. Now we have a ban on DDT and still no one is looking to see if we have the lowest costs. Maybe we do an dmabe we don’t, but as you point out conditions change, so someone ought to have a look.

    “When the inputs changes due to new information not previously known when a chemical was originally introduce… it can and does result in further restrictions and sometimes total bans.”

    And presumably at a lower total price. If that isn’t the case then someone is stealing from someone else. You are correct in saying that this happens all the time: we make corrections in how much we allocate for what part of the equation. I’m only suggesting that we can do a much better and more honest job of it.

    In order to do a better job of it, people like yourself have to understand how it really works and get behind it. Most people and groups are not interested because it is easier and more satisfying to steal an undue advantage than it is to just get just “the right answer”. These groups don’t care about the ight answer, they want their cause to win at any cost – as long as it is someone else’s cost.

    ——————————–

    Like professor Zetland I doubt the ideological stance many enviro groups take.

    Why? Because they have made a preemptive decision to dismiss ALL solutions that involve markets, private enterprise, capitalism, etc. while simultaneously putting their trust in some sort of magic government made of “public servants” who are really good at predicting and implementing the best policy for the People.

    Professor Zetland has this to say about water rights, but they could be air right, pollution rights, property rights and the same logic holds.

    “Water may belong to ALL the people, but the rights have been assigned — even if they’ve been over-assigned.

    Those who hold rights have made financial commitments based on the rights. They will suffer unconstitutional harm if their rights are deprived.

    Anyone with property is allowed to dispose of it at a profit.

    How would the “state… allocate water to meet the needs of all the people and the environment”? I understand that C-WIN has its own ideas, but those ideas are not shared by all……Trust Markets “

    As you say, the equation is never static. That is why you need a market to continually rebalance it. After all, if the equation is never static how can a complete ban always be right? A ban is static: government will never admit it made a mistake, so you might get stuck with a bad decision pretty much forever.

    The market will correct a lot sooner: the market is not afraid of mistakes, but learns from them.

    Just a professor Zetland describes, we WILL pay for not polluting. We will pay one way or another and the costs are captured in that equation. We may as well havea market where we can ascertain what we are paying for and what we are getting.

    What is dishonest about (some or even most) environmentalists is that they refuse to even concede that there are costs, as well as benefits to their proposals.

    If we all share the benefits then we had best all share the costs, or else we are no better than common thieves. Any other approach is absolutely dishonest: make the polluters pay is dishonest because it can’t happen: whether we have pollution controls or not, even complete controls like bans, it is US who pay.

    We should be good consumers and ONLY pay th eminimum price available for only what we need.

    Anything else is a waste of resources and not green.

    “People who make money by polluting are invariable opposed to restricting it because the “value” they see is a benefit to them… and in their minds – the perceived harm is overblown.”

    There is no money to be made without some form of pollution. I t cannot be done. We are all polluters, and we should all pay our share for prevention and cleanup. If the benefits are as high as environmentalists claim then they should have no problem in supporting a market based solution.

    Environmentalists have an interest in overblowing the benefits because they think they do not pay the costs. This is deceptive, dishonest and wrong, hopelessly wrong, just as Professor Zetland points out.

    RH

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The implication of this research is that environmental policy in general and climate change policy in particular should not be used as an excuse to erect trade barriers. Climate change policy should be implemented based on an examination of the environmental benefits and the environmental costs. Other economic and social goals should be pursued outside of the climate change policy arena. “

    http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/39263

    Applies to local trade barriers like bans as well as international ones.

    RH

  64. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “New York–Now that carbon dioxide has been declared a pollutant by the EPA, numerous local jurisdictions around the country, whose finances have been badly hammered by the current recession, are considering the imposition of “Exhalation Taxes.”

    New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are reportedly preparing a joint statement citing the legitimacy and inevitability of taxes on CO2 emissions in general and on human exhalations of CO2 in particular. Humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere and thus contribute to global warming every time they exhale, in other words, every time they let out their breath. Some studies have estimated that taking all human beings together their exhalations account for as much as 8 per cent of all human-caused CO2 emissions. This is more than the proportion emitted by all privately owned aircraft in the world and is thus an important and fruitful target for reduction.”

    http://blog.mises.org/archives/009844.asp

    RH

  65. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The only solution to stop global warming is an immediate cessation of all CO2 and CH4 emitting techologies. We need to get rid of oil, gas, coal, and any other fuel contaiing carbon on a worldwide level. The banning of this in the US alone will not work. The entire world needs to ban this immediately. If we can’t develop clean alternatives we can go without energy. This is the only way to stop global warming. A small reduction by the US and EU alone will do nothing when the rest of the world is increasing their emissions. Why doesn’t greenpeace and Al Gore recognize this? We need to stop ALL CO2, RIGHT NOW.

    Only Solution

    Posted in Environmental Capital
    RH

  66. Larry G Avatar

    the truth is, like so many other pollution issues, is that we don’t know with enough accuracy and clarity to be able to formulate a precise enough response to head off disaster before it is too late.

    Virtually every chemical that has been banned – originally started out with the belief that it was ‘safe enough” …”if used properly”…. and in virtually every case – as time went by – and the evidence mounted – it became clear that we grossly underestimated the potential harm.. and so we backtracked.. outlawing chemicals that were originally permitted.

    It’s the same deal with GHG except the stakes are much higher.

    Most everyone now accepts that bad stuff could eventually be the result if we don’t act – but the issue has been and continues to be… what must we do now and what can we afford to do at a more leisurely pace.

    One thing is for sure – we cannot expect other countries in the world to act if we don’t lead on the issue.

    If any country has the economic and technological ability to move forward – it would be one or more of the industrialized countries and if we wait for countries like India or China to act.. before we do.. it’s just tantamount to doing nothing….

    IMHO.

    what this has to do with rural broadband is beyond me but it’s a bad habit for every thread to end in a joust about the environment and I claim my share of responsibility.

  67. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “the truth is, like so many other pollution issues, is that we don’t know with enough accuracy and clarity “

    I think that is nonsense. We know how to make decisions under uncertainty. We know how to set boundaries on uncertainty. We know how to do stress testing and sensitivity analysis.

    It is just easier to say that such and such is unknowable or priceless, and then use fear or tradition to justify our position or our goals.

    I agree with what you say about losing the thread on broadband. My argument would still be the same. There is an optimum investment to be made: the one that gives us the best social benefit and makes no one worse off.

    Whether that investment is in envronmental protection or social services or broadband makes no difference. There are known ways to approach the problem, and known and accepted ways to set the optimum social criteria.

    The problem with that approach is that it is nonpartisan. It will end up with the same result whether you start from the Republican or Democratic side of the aisle.

    Since it does not support anyone’s preconceived notions or dogma, it is universally derided by everyone. people want to “assign” their own values in ways that affect other people, instead of disovering values as determined by the marketplace.

    At the same time they wish to “assign” their values to other people, they want their own values protected as inviolate.

    Not every government investment is a bridge to nowhere, and government also does not own the keys to the big rock candy mountain. If we really want to make everyone better off then the place to start is to stop making recommendations that amount to stealing from someone else.

    The way to do that is to look for lowest TOTAL cost and not look for “lowest cost to me”.

    RH

  68. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Arlington, Va. – U.S. metropolitan areas with lower taxes exhibit higher employment growth, faster population growth, and greater increases in real personal income than areas with a higher tax burden, concludes a new study released today by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), an Arlington, Va.-based policy research group. The study, “Higher Taxes, Less Growth,” found that areas with higher taxes had lower employment growth, smaller personal income gains and slower growth of population.”

    So, the anti-growth factions should be pro higher taxes, if they want to achieve their slow growth goals.

    RH

  69. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Should the Environmental Protection Agency take into account the added risk of small vehicles when setting fuel efficiency standards?

    RH

  70. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Local leaders need to hold telcos accountable for redlining when they sign contracts. Citizens need to hold both local leaders and telcos accountable.

Leave a Reply