Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

IT WILL TAKE A LOT MORE THAN LINT

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

In the Bacon’s Rebellion Blog post “Here, Take My Lint” of 10 August, Jim Bacon profiles the current debate on the role of the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority (HRTA) in achieving Mobility and Access in the Hampton roads New Urban Region.

In Peter Galuszka’s Bacon’s Rebellion News Service story “Fizzled Launch” and in Jim Bacon’s 14 August Blog post “A Stumbling Start” further details of the status of HRTA emerge.

In a 15 August Blog post Jim Bacon examines “The Conservative Backlash Grows” over the legislation that established HRTA and gave a similar Agency, similar powers in the northern part of Virginia. Jim provides links to six news stories on the topic. Something must be important here to spend all this ink. Or it there?

The issue being discussed is how to raise money for transportation facilities. The debate rages in spite of the fact that more money, no matter how much is raised or from what source it comes, if spent for more of the things Agencies have spent money for in the past – primarily roadways for Large Private vehicles – such new facilities will only make the Mobility and Access Crisis worse in both the Hampton Roads New Urban Region and the Virginia portion of the National Capital Subregion.

As large an issue as this is, there is a bigger one.

As reported in Jim Bacon’s “Here, Take My Lint” story, George Donley, an “ordinary citizen,” told a 9 August public hearing by HRTA that he had only “lint” left to contribute to the functions of government. Donley’s plea made for a good quote for the public hearing story in MainStream Media and it caught Jim Bacon’s eye.

A citizen who has the wherewith all to get to a hearing and the ability to make a public statement saying he has only lint and that this foolishness would be newsworthy is a tragedy of epic proportions.

Citizens may not, for good reason, approve of what government Agencies are doing with the money they are now getting or where these Agencies plan to get more money in the future. However, the reality is that it is “the public,” “the Commons” that is running on empty. Those in the top one half of the economic food chain are spending their children’s and grandchildren’s future.

It will take vastly more taxes, vastly higher fees and vastly greater amounts of volunteer and sweat equity devoted to public, common efforts (rather than private, self-serving efforts) to create safe and secure Households, Dooryards, Clusters, Neighborhoods, Villages, Communities and New Urban Regions much less safe and secure nation-states.

Contemporary Civilization is running on fumes. There is a Mobility and Access Crisis, an Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis and a Helter Skelter Crisis directly related to dysfunctional human settlement patterns.

The well respected commentator “Anon 12:18” states the issue well (although that may not have been his intent) in a comment under “The Conservative Backlash Grows”:

“The problem is that no taxes, no new spending is not a principle. It’s a slogan. … A promise to never ever raise taxes, to hold spending to an artificial goal, simply sets up an impossible goal.”

Bridges are falling down. Lenders are packaging debt and selling it as a speculative investment / asset. Nation-states are tearing down forests to grow sugar to burn in Large, Private Vehicles. The temperature is rising faster than anyone expected a few years ago and the US of A is leading the world in the production of Greenhouse gas and buying everything China and India can produce regardless of health, safety or economic concerns.

There is staggering private debt, mortgages are being forclosed, credit is shrinking. There is a huge balance of payments deficit, two wars and a federal government that took a 50.1% vote as a mandate and has demonstrated more incompetence and corruption than the U. S. Grant’s administration – the cannot even rebuild after a hurricane. There is a widening Wealth Gap that threatens free markets and democracy…

In the face of this fat, self-serving citizens get press quotes for saying they have noting to give but lint?

Humans has built a technology based civilization that is hugely expensive yet well fed citizens who enjoy – for now – unprecedented freedom and luxury and champion ever more private rights are not willing to accept public responsibilities.

Governance practitioners, in fear of losing their jobs, scramble to see who they need to appease and subsidize – cotton farmers, oil refiners, autonomobile makers — to keep the ship up for a few more years…

Those who only have lint to give better save in for their life jackets.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

44 responses to “IT WILL TAKE A LOT MORE THAN LINT”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

    OK, we have a greedy self-centered collection of individuals who put themseles first and societies collective needs second. We have a bunch of people who want too much of the wrong things, and this hurts everyone.

    People will want the “right” things only when they find those things are actually wanting. At that point they will be willing to pay for them, and Enterprise will step up to the plate and find a way to provide them, probably in search of short term profits.

    When that happens, people on the high end of the wealth gap will be able to buy more than those on the low end: call it congestion pricing if you like. So we enjoy unprecedented freedom and luxury, for now.

    You seem to be championing the idea that we should have fewer private rights, less luxury, and less freedom in order that more of us can subsist at a lower level: sustainability at the expense of sustenance.

    I think that’s a pretty hard sell. You need to offer a bargain where both sides think they came out ahead, not one where both sides pay more and are worse off as a result.

    If the common is running on empty, then it needs more money or it needs to provide less services. If we are all to subsist on less then where will the money come from? At the same time, it is the poor that need the most services.

    When we are all poor we will need more services, and under your plan we would give up more freedom and more wealth to get them. Eventually we would give up all our freedom and all our wealth, and get all we are told we need from the “commons”.

    We’ve seen a few countries try that, and it really is the tragedy of the commons.

    When the US is no longer leading the world in the production of greenhouse gas, then some other country will be. When expensive mortgages are foreclosed, someone else is going to get a good deal on a house at a lower price. If debt isn’t repaid, then the debtor got something for nothing, and the loser is the lender who made bad choices.

    When life jackets are needed, the wealthy will have the nicest ones, and Enterprise will be there to provide them – for a profit.

    So, what you see as multiple crises that can only be fixed by more intervention, I see as multiple opportunities that will fix themselves, if we allow people the freedom to do what is necessary (read, best for themselves), and if we give them the incentive of profit.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Now I want to say this with as much decorum as possible, because I know that’s the tone that JB wants to strike:

    But RH’s writing, and thinking, is indecipherable. It suggests that he is unable to listen well, and as a result, unable to respond.

    Beats the hell out of me. I kind of get what EMR is saying, but I freakin’ never get what RH is saying. I suspect there are too many mirrors in his house.

  3. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Recessions create hardships but they also catalyze change.

    I have always thought that the best time to change a company is during a recession. Times are tough, people have lost their jobs, results are poor and everybody really wants to find a way out of the mire. Decisions get made faster, people work harder, new ideas get heard more readily – the company changes.

    Then, the recession ends, the crisis is over and everything slows down again. The cash is rolling in, the stock is up. Why change anything?

    I think the same for counties, states and countries too.

    We’ve had quite a few good economic years in a row. Most people are complacent. They complain but they’re not really ready for change.

    Yet the storm clouds are gathering. The next recession will be my fourth as a businessman. And, I can feel it coming. Like you can feel the early breath of impending winter on a sunny fall afternoon. Fast rising oil prices, a debt problem / crisis, increasing stock market volatility, falling tax revenues, wallowing in the mire of ill-conceived foreign misadventures. Can’t you feel those wisps of cold wind occasionally interrupting the sunshine? Aren’t those wisps getting colder and more frequent?

    Watching all this is like seeing the leaves turn color then fall off the trees. The days grow shorter and you know what’s next.

    The United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia are headed into another economic recession.

    I see it being harder than the average recession but not a depression. The national debt, consumer over-borrowing and what I perceive as a pending private equity crash will all make this recession worse than most. However, the fundamental American economy still isn’t broken and this next recession, like all before it, will end.

    Government spending won’t cure the impending recession. The government is already spending plenty. Unfortunately, the government will enter this next recession by trying to spend their way out of it. That will only make things worse. And letting people pursue profits won’t cure the impending recession – people are pursuing profits with a vengence today. Unfortunately, some of that pursuit of profit will deepen the recession until it is stopped. Does everyone remember the “dot com bubble”? How about “junk bonds”? Get ready to learn a new term – “Hedge Fund Meltdown”.

    Only time and a changed approach ever cure recessions and only time and a changed approach will cure this next one.

    But all who are really friends of the commons will see this next recession as a time when change can be accomplished at a far fatster pace than during the good times.

    ROI analysis for government projects?

    Enforced immigration laws?

    Lower governemnt spending ( at least as a percentage of GDP)?

    Reduced national debt?

    Better zoning laws?

    Transparancy in government?

    If you really care about these things – get ready.

    Recessions create hardships but they also catalyze change.

  4. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Anon –

    I take it that EMR believes we all need to sacrifice to cure our problems.

    I take it that RH believes that we can overcome most of our problems through growth (with less sacrifice).

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR thinks we have multiple crises, as a result of shortages and excesses: credit, mobility, shelter, organization. He thinks that means the end of the world as we know it is coming.

    I think that when you have a shortage, one of two things happen:
    a)either prices go up and Enterprise finds a way to supply the needed goods to those that can afford them (everyone else does without), or b) the government steps in with price, wage, distribution controls.

    If b) happens you are effectively taking goods from those that have and create them and giving them to those that don’t. It is forcible equity devoted to common, public efforts instead of private self serving ones. Stealing, in other words.

    It is really a bad incentive for going out and making or preserving things if it is going to be stolen from you, so this usually leads to a worse situation, not a better one.

    More people will get more of what they want if you give them more freedom to get it, and more opportunities to profit from the endeavor.

    That freedom would include the freedom to pack up and move to a better place. If EMR is right about everything else, then it is freedom that will allow people to choose better, more functional places, and it is freedom that will allow the market to supply such places.

    Is that so hard?

    RH

    I believe if someone is asking you for a sacrifice, what they really want is for you to spend money on their behalf. They usually back this up with an argument for the common good.

    If I give you a dollar, how is it that WE are better off?

    If we both give a dollar, pool our resources and get a discount, then that’s different. We get more for our money, the vendor makes one sale instead of two, and everbody’s happy.

  6. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Ray –

    You have a pretty traditional macro-economic view. So do I.

    The one area where I question the traditional view is in energy.

    A lot of industries have been built up over the past 100 years on the back of stable oil prices – at least stable over time.

    I believe that the stability of those prices has been permanently broken.

    It will take some time for Enterprise to create alternates that can restore stability to energy prices. In fact, there is no guarantee that Enterprise will find a substitute for oil based energy at the same price / unit of output for a long, long time.

    Meanwhile, the sudden and permanent escalation of energy prices due to the sudden and permanent escalation of oil prices breaks down whole industries.

    Methods of manufacture and distribution that are based on stable oil prices break down. Agriculture – which is based on trading people for oil on the farm breaks down. Transportation systems break down.

    Of course, there is still oil and energy available – it is just much, much more expensive. And things that used to make economic sense no longer make economic sense.

    First there is inflation. Then stag-flation (remember that from the Carter days?). Then recession. Then depression.

    Of course, the further the crisis deepens, the more the non-energy problems compound the crisis (low savings rate, national debt, etc).

    Enterprise is searching for alternatives but this is a scientific / engineering problem – not a business problem.

    As always, the pain is most acute at the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

    The question is how many rungs have to feel pain before the government acts.

    This is, by far, my worst case economic scenario.

    However, it breaks the traditional model because it assumes that economic substitutes for oil based energy cannot be found.

    Under this worst case scenario – would you favor aggressive government intervention?

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think this is where the parentheses come in (everyone else does without).

    In the case of energy, it may mean that a lot of people just die. For people at a subsistence level, it won’t make much difference; for the guy in an air conditioned high rise 12 storeys up it’s a killer.

    In this case, the people at the top of the economic ladder use more energy, and they may feel the cost and the loss more than those that use little.

    “There is no guarantee that Enterprise will find a substitute for oil based energy at the same price / unit of output for a long, long time.” This raises two questions. Can we afford the same level of output? Global warming suggests that maybe we cannot, at any price.

    If Global warming is the unpriced portion of the cost of oil, then raising the price of oil amounts to paying to reduce global warming.

    At a higher price, some people will do without. (same with congestion pricing) They probably won’t like it, and they will take it out on their government.

    They’ll come down out of that sweltering high rise and take to the streets. Things that used to make economic sense, like airconditioned high rise condo’s, suddenly don’t.

    What is the government to do? How can the government intervene? They can’t make more oil. They don’t control the price of energy, except up, maybe. They can encourage conservation, but the price of energy will do that without their help: why speed up the pain?

    What’s an economic substitute? The equivalent energy at the same price, or less energy at a higher price, and used differently?

    In this case, Enterprise will take on a much broader meaning. Virtually every enterprise will adjust how they use energy and every other Enterprise will adapt accordingly.

    If we can’t ship watermelons from Georgia and Blueberries from Maine, my farm options change. But if I’m freezing in the dark, maybe I need to move to Georgia, anyway.

    It is far too complicated to even guess. We think that WalMart is energy intensive because we ship a bunch of stuff to one spot, and then everyone drives to get it.

    What if we all have to walk, or walk a lot more? Now WalMart has to deliver less stuff to more places; maybe they become Corner Walmart and merge with 7-11 and Starbucks. Is it less energy intensive or more? Cost more, or less? Maybe we just decide we don’t need a lot of WalMart junk, and we put half of China out of work.

    The work I do is multiplied by the power of my tractor a hundred times. But if the cost of the tractor and fuel go up a hundred times, it is now economic for me to hire 99 people to do the same work. But now, even if the work stays the same, and the cost stays the same, productivity is way down.

    The economic substitute for oil based energy might turn out to be using a lot less carbon energy and a lot more human energy. We might be real sorry we shipped 12 million illegal laborers home.

    It isn’t going to be pretty. It might not even be cleaner.

    If the government had acted in Carter’s time, as he proposed, then we might have had more time to adapt to changes. But, all that time we would have grown poorer, while other countries went full steam ahead.

    We might have conserved a lot, and discovered we couldn’t afford the cost.

    There are going to be a lot of changes made and a lot needed. The best thing the government can do is facilitate change, and not try to preserve the status quo. With 300 million brains, each trying to figure out what works best, I don’t think there is much a handful of government planners can do to help.

    Their job is to keep us safe and free. It’s a huge job by itself. If we are not safe, then the economic value of things is distorted, if we are not free then we can’t make the trades that we use to measure value.

    For 20 years a couple of Mall owners in in Agawon Massachusetts rented parking space for people attending 7 flags. 7 Flags approached the town government and claimed a safety hazard and had those parking places closed. Then they raised the price of parking at seven flags.

    Customers of 7 flags are not free to park where they wish. The Mall owners are not free to set their price for their parking spaces, and there is no way to tell what parking is “worth”. The long established value of their property is suddenly not safe.

    Clearly, the government should have stayed out of it. They were not doing their primary job, and it wound up costing everybody, except 7 flags.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Two observations:

    1) that is it ironic after reading Risse’s post, which I acknowledge has veracity in its description of our current state of affairs, that Risse labels people like myself old-house eco nuts who are unwilling to compromise to get things one.

    2) My mother many years ago, when at McDonalds, looked at all the plastic that went to support her bowl of soup and said, why do they throw all this away? Point made.

    She grew up with a garden and a rural culture that canned food, and saved all they could.

    Enough said?

  9. Just Drive Bull Free Avatar
    Just Drive Bull Free

    “The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of methane a year — equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.”

    Meanwhile we are supposed to take Risse seriously as a prophet of doom when he writes, “The temperature is rising faster than anyone expected a few years ago and the US of A is leading the world in the production of Greenhouse gas…”

    Read it and weep.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html

    It’s the Moose belching, stupid!

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Risse trries to link several very different issues here and fails. Underfunded infrastructure has nothing to do with free trade.

  11. subpatre Avatar
    subpatre

    E M Risse writes: ‘The well respected commentator “Anon 12:18” states the issue well (although that may not have been his intent) in a comment under “The Conservative Backlash Grows”‘

    Yet not long ago, E M Risse wrote: “Anonymous” postings are akin to profane graffiti. Spray it on and then go and hide.

    Is this a change of heart or a change in the content of an anonymous’ comment?

  12. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “The economic substitute for oil based energy might turn out to be using a lot less carbon energy and a lot more human energy. We might be real sorry we shipped 12 million illegal laborers home.”.

    Amen to that.

    Of course, with the unemployment that structurally higher energy prices will bring we may be able to fill the jobs with American citizens.

  13. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    I agree with most of Ed’s warning signs. Infrastructure *is* decaying, and we can’t get beyond the bad choices of “don’t raise taxes” vs. “raise taxes and spend the money like we always have.” There *is* staggering private debt. Lenders *have* largely ceased exercising due diligence in packaging debt and selling it to secondary markets. There *is* a huge and unsustainable balance-of-payments deficit. And energy prices *have* moved to a new, permanently higher plateau. What’s more, I’d suggest that the spreading use of derivatives may expose the economy to systemic risks that no one fully appreciates. The United States, indeed the entire global economy, is due for a major restructuring as unsustainable trends correct themselves.

    The only trend that I do not find alarming is global warming. Climate change is unquestionably real. But *human-caused* climate change is very open to question. According to my current beach-vacation reading, “Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language” by Robin Dunbar, water surface temperatures have dropped 10 degrees centigrade over the past 10 million years. Drastic climate change is part of the natural order. Recent temperature variations (the past century) have fluctated within a narrow range. NASA has just made major downward revisions to its data (with very little fanfare — I don’t think it fit the NYT template of legitimate climate news), so that the 1990s and 2000s are no warmer than the 1930s.

    As I’ve said before, there are plenty of legitimate environmental issues to get torqued about — toxic wsate, loss of wildlife habitat, invasive species, over-fishing, acid rain, low-level ozone, deforestation, erosion, and on and on.

    Getting back to the original point of Ed’s post, I’m a bit more sympathetic to Mr. Donley and his lack of anything but lint to cough up. I suspect that most citizens would be willing to be taxed more if they had any confidence that the money will be well spent. The problem, as Ed rightly points out, is that the political system has been captured by the special interests. Mr. Donley (like myself) has no faith that, if he submitted to tax increases, the money will end up in the right places. In the absence of Fundamental Change, the money will simply perpetuate Business As Usual.

  14. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    At 2:40 PM, Groveton said…

    Recessions create hardships but they also catalyze change.

    Very, very true and the rest of the post is very good too.

    My concern is that:

    1) No one is outlining what that changes should be, and

    2) There will not be the resources left to make the Fundamental Changes once a working majority of citizens understand the need for those changes.

    EMR

  15. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    At 4:17 PM, Groveton said

    …

    “The one area where I question the traditional view is in energy.”

    “A lot of industries have been built up over the past 100 years on the back of stable oil prices – at least stable over time.”

    Groveton is absolutly right.

    Since the spacial distribution of human activity (human settlemetn patterns) is (are) the largest determinate of energy use and waste — both imported and domestic — that is why, Anon 7:06, all the items we noted in this post are tied together. It is not just Mobilty and Access and Affordable / Accessible Housing and the Wealth Gap, it is everything.

    (By the way tell us, if you will, what is “free trade” and how does it relate to the hyper-regulated and subsidized inter-regional, inter-naiton-state and intra-global exchange of goods and services that exists in 2007 on this planet?)

    EMR

  16. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    At 10:02 PM, Anonymous said…

    Two observations:

    1) that is it ironic after reading Risse’s post, which I acknowledge has veracity in its description of our current state of affairs,

    THANK YOU

    that Risse labels people like myself old-house eco nuts who are unwilling to compromise to get things one.

    I DO NOT RECALL ALL THE DETAILS OF YOUR PAST POSTS BUT DID YOU NOT CHALLENGE MY OPINIONS BASED ON A FAULTY UNDERSTANDING OF MY EXPERIENCE AND LIFESTYLE, PAST AND PRESENT?

    HAVING WORKED WITH CITIZENS WHO HOLD VIEWS SIMILAR TO ONES YOU EXPRESSED AND WERE UNWILLING TO MOVE BEYOND PRECONCIEVED NOTIONS AND THE SERARCH FOR VILLAINS, I SAID THAT OLD HOUSE ECO NUTS COULD BE PART OF THE PROBLEM. I STAND BY THAT OBSERVATION.

    2) My mother many years ago, when at McDonalds, looked at all the plastic that went to support her bowl of soup and said, why do they throw all this away?

    MY MOTHER, BORN 100 YEARS AGO THIS PAST 7 JULY, MADE THIS POINT IN 1948. I VOWED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IN WHEN I READ VANCE PACKARDS 50S BOOK “WASTE MAKERS.” MY CHILDREN HELPED LEAD AN ELEMENTRY SCHOOL EFFORT TO EXPAND RECYCLING IN EVERY CLUSTER IN OUR NEIGHBLRHOOD IN 1972. WE REDOUBLED OUR EFFORTS AFTER OCT 1973.

    AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CRITICAL MASS OF CITIZENS TO SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS.

    AS NOTED BEFORE YOUR UNINFORMED ATTACKS ON THOSE WHO PROPOSE COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIES PUT OFF THE DAY WHEN MORE THAN A FEW AGREE WITH YOUR MOTHER.

    Point made.

    WHICH POINT WAS THAT?

    She grew up with a garden and a rural culture that canned food, and saved all they could.

    SO DID OUR FAMILY

    Enough said?

    NO, YOU STILL OWE AND APPOLOGY.

    EMR

  17. Lyle Avatar
    Lyle

    Ed, let me express the foundation for my optimism on your two concerns.

    1: A number of excellent ideas are brewing, being tested, and implemented. Congestion pricing is one of them, but there are many many more such as local food systems, cradle to cradle design, green public revenue shifts (which includes congestion pricing), cutting inefficient subsidies, and improving civic participation with publicly financed elections, proportional representation, instant runoff voting, choice voting, citizen councils, and so on. In desperation, our politicians and business leaders will look for easy solutions and pick those that can best be implemented. Onward the slapdash evolution of our society goes, in constant fear of Fundamental Change, but constant struggle towards it.

    2: We use a tiny percentage of the solar energy that reaches this planet. We use a tiny percentage of the potential wind energy. We still have a hundred years or so of coal, and several decades at least of oil. Thin film solar promises to revolutionize that industry, and I fully expect other innovations in other areas. Most urgently, we have vast expanses of government subsidized waste to tap, should we require the juice. If we decide to act within the next decade, we have fabulous resources to do so. Still, I do agree that urgency is appropriate.

    Thank you for your good work and inspiration.

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Onward the slapdash evolution of our society goes, in constant fear of Fundamental Change, but constant struggle towards it.”

    Exactly. Could not be said better.

    “We use a tiny percentage of the solar energy that reaches this planet. We use a tiny percentage of the potential wind energy. We still have a hundred years or so of coal, and several decades at least of oil.”

    Exactly again. If the sky is falling, it is falling slowly.

    “Thin film solar promises to revolutionize that industry, and I fully expect other innovations in other areas.”

    Once again, exactly right. If I recall, none other than Shell announced a huge thin film solar factory, to be built in Japan.

    Japan has no indigenous energy sources, and is a leader in solar as a result.

  19. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Lyle:

    Thank you for your thoughtful input.

    I will address these points in a future post.

    I have a note on Jim Bacon’s post, then need to get to other priorities at this time.

    EMR

  20. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    At 10:51 AM, Jim Bacon said…

    I agree with most of Ed’s warning signs.

    …..

    The only trend that I do not find alarming is global warming. Climate change is unquestionably real. But *human-caused* climate change is very open to question. According to my current beach-vacation reading, “Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language” by Robin Dunbar, water surface temperatures have dropped 10 degrees centigrade over the past 10 million years. Drastic climate change is part of the natural order. Recent temperature variations (the past century) have fluctated within a narrow range. NASA has just made major downward revisions to its data (with very little fanfare — I don’t think it fit the NYT template of legitimate climate news), so that the 1990s and 2000s are no warmer than the 1930s.

    As I’ve said before, there are plenty of legitimate environmental issues to get torqued about — toxic wsate, loss of wildlife habitat, invasive species, over-fishing, acid rain, low-level ozone, deforestation, erosion, and on and on.

    JIM AND I HAVE AGREED ON HIS LAST POINT BUT THERE MAY BE REASON TO RECONSIDER HIS VIEW OF THE “HUMAN CAUSED” PART OF THE EQUATION.

    WE SKETCHED OUT THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL LAST WEEK:

    “MUST READS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

    The 15 August WaPo op ed page had two must reads on Global Warming and Climate Change.

    One is by Michael Gerson of the Council on Foreign Relations (“Hope on Climate Change? Here is Why.”) and one by regular WaPo columnist Robert J. Samuelson (“Global Warming Simplicities”).

    These two right-of-center observers take it as a given that:

    1. There is not longer a debatable question as to whether the earth is warming, and

    2. There is no longer a question whether human activity is contributing to / exacerbating the current warming cycle

    We have known the first reality for a long time. We grew up in Glacier National Park and helped with the measurement of glacial retreat in the late 50s, a retreat that was well documented by the late 30s.

    We have avoided harping on the second reality because whatever the cause of Climate Change, the intelligent response is the same:

    1. Reduce human’s ecological footprint individually (less consumption per capita) and collectively (fewer capitas), and

    2. Take actions to evolve fundamentally different and sustainable human settlement patterns.

    Now, according to these two, the questions are resolved and the focus shifts to solutions.

    The money quote from Gearson is:

    “Would any politically feasible policy changes by Congress and the president make a dent in this trend?” Gearson is not yet been willing to consider Fundamental Change in governance structure. This is where Groveton can have an impact.

    The money quote from Samuelson is:

    “One way or another, our assaults against global warming are likely to be symbolic, ineffective or both.” “… the overriding reality seems almost un-American: We simply don’t have a solution for this problem.” Samuelson is also not yet willing to consider Fundamental Change in settlement patterns.

    A change in settlement patterns could start immediately – with the location decisions every citizen will make tomorrow and every day thereafter.

    Unlike the puny changes that are called “draconian” by Business-As-Usual, Fundamental Change in settlement patterns could overnight change the trajectory of civilization. Such changes in settlement pattern would be possible with Fundamental Change in governance structure and a citizen understanding of their enlightened best interest.

    It would be tempting to call Gearson and Samuelson intellectual lemmings that are content to set back-fires for the retreat of Business-As-Usual but for the fact that there are among the Best and Brightest with a national voice.

    In a democracy with a market economy, change requires a realization of ones best interest and then actions that reflect individual and collective best interest – and that of their Enterprises, Institutions and Agencies. A growth of citizens awareness will not happen with lemming leadership.

    HERE IS THE NEW MATERIAL IN RESPONSE TO JIM BACONS POINTS:

    Gerson and Samuelson are suggesting that there are no longer grounds for disputing the existence of a crisis and it would seem prudent to stop bothering to question the issue of a human contribution.

    It only gives the Business-As-Usual crowd something to obfuscate the need for Fundamental Change.

    An additional note on the current state of “research:”

    There is not much sense in looking at pre-1740 data because there are so many variables. Moose produced as much CO2 before 1740 as after. It is man that has changed.

    So far I have not seen any “expert” that discounts human contribution to climate change that has not been countered and discredited by a counter expert and vis-a-versa.

    I have, however, been impressed with the ice cores from Tibet and the potential that “the roof of the world” has to trigger the punctuated equilibrium in Climate Change.

    EMR

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How do you maske Fundamental Change over night?

    RH

  22. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    You pass HB 3202 and force all-appointed and unaccountable regional government and taxing power controlled by the regional business lobby on the citizens that aren’t paying attention.

    It’s easy!

    It is already the lawe of the land in Tidewater/”Hampton Roads”.

    Who’s going top stop the business lobby?

    Voters?

    ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, … they’d have to have well funded candidates willing to run for the General Asembly to do that.

    Fat chance of that happening.

  23. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    At 3:05 PM, Groveton said…

    Anon –

    I take it that EMR believes we all need to sacrifice to cure our problems.

    Groveton:

    I am not really into “sacrifice” in any way shape or form, I am into enlightened self interest.

    If there is not a Balance between indivdual rights / privliges and public / commons responsibilities we all lose everything.

    That need not happen but Jared sketches out how it has and will again unless we are willing to intelligently plan for the future and question “tradional values” — ones like blood sports for instance and winner take all economics.

    EMR

  24. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    At 8:19 AM, subpatre said…

    E M Risse writes: ‘The well respected commentator “Anon 12:18” states the issue well (although that may not have been his intent) in a comment under “The Conservative Backlash Grows”‘

    Yet not long ago, E M Risse wrote: “Anonymous” postings are akin to profane graffiti. Spray it on and then go and hide.

    Is this a change of heart or a change in the content of an anonymous’ comment?

    SUBPATRE!

    It has bee a while.

    Sorry for the confusion. I thought it was obvious that I was being sarcastic.

    It was clear form the comment by 12:18 that he did not mean what it said when you put his / her first and last sentence together. But so arranged it said what I wanted to say.

    I still distain Anons

    Good to see you are keep track of things.

    EMR

  25. Send Your Daughter to China Avatar
    Send Your Daughter to China

    Risse writes “1. Reduce human’s ecological footprint individually (less consumption per capita) and collectively (fewer capitas), and”

    What?

    “fewer capitas”

    Fewer people?

    Here’s some bedtime reading for your old tired worn out doomsaying.

    The Global Baby Bust
    Phillip Longman
    From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004

    “Summary: Most people think overpopulation is one of the worst dangers facing the globe. In fact, the opposite is true. As countries get richer, their populations age and their birthrates plummet. And this is not just a problem of rich countries: the developing world is also getting older fast. Falling birthrates might seem beneficial, but the economic and social price is too steep to pay. The right policies could help turn the tide, but only if enacted before it’s too late.”

    http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83307/phillip-longman/the-global-baby-bust.html

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Maybe so, but I’ve also heard that half of the people who ever lived are alive today. That is a staggering statistic, if true.

  27. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    SYDtoC:

    Thank you for the input. Several points:

    While the rate of population growth has slowed some, the total population continues to increase.

    (That increase is much faster than it would be if US of A were to change its aid policy, that is another story.)

    Outside the US of A (where immigration is the main driving force) most of the popuulation increase is in the “developing” part of the globe.

    In the developing part of the globe, the per capita consumption is rising far faster than the the population growth is slowing.

    And as Anon. 8:01’s comment suggests, with longer life spans, the total-life consumption per capita is growing at an even faster rate.

    Net result? Ever more rapid depletion of every resouce needed to support civilization — water, metals, productinve ag land — but especially oil and other economiclly viable energy sources.

    The summary sentence that you quote:

    “Falling birthrates might seem beneficial, but the economic and social price is too steep to pay.” is the veiw of a pseudo-economist working for Autonomobile, cement, steel, rubber, sugar, or other interests who see a fall in global demand as a bad thing for their stockholders (and the comfortable jobs).

    The fact is that what is “too steep to pay” is the prospect of continued expansion of consumption.

    Longman is right about the need for the “right policies” and need for quick action. He is wrong about what those policies should be.

    EMR

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Risse

    If Jim Bacon cared about individual liberty he would ban you from this blog, yoo big socialist government as usual dictator.

  29. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Anon 11:39:

    I will bet you equate “individual liberty” with the right to consume as much as you can.

    When you grow up and learn that there must be a Balance between individual rights and community responsibilities, perhaps you will be ready for intelligent dialogue using your real name.

    Until then you make a joke of free speech, an important individual liberty.

    EMR

  30. NOT ED RISSE Avatar
    NOT ED RISSE

    Risse

    Like I said, you are an ageing socialist totalitarian dinosaur.

    You have no right to dictate what I or anyone else consume or produce or exchange.

    Stay out of my life.

    I am glad you and your tired ideas are at the twilight of life.

    Individual liberty will outlive your pathetic attempts to dictate what others do.

    If Jim Bacon wants to let you keep spouting your socialist totalitarianism on his blog that is his right, but it sure is not conservative or freedom loving.

    It is an education in how you anti-human fear mongering eco-freaks think.

    It is humorous in a pathetic way.

    When you grow up and realize you have no right to control my life, we could have a real dialogue.

    Until then you are just as bad as Kate Hanley, Lilla Richards, Jean Packard, Audrey Moore, etc. who thought humans were greedy interlopers on the planet and they were doing “god’s work” by limiting where your old boss Hazel could build homes for those dirty polluting humans.

    Get it?

  31. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Anon 11:39:

    You and Reid G. need to get together and decide if our work is that of a socialist or a fascist, there is a difference.

    We choose to think when attacked from both sides we must be close to the middle.

    We also think you protest too much.

    I am not saying what you should do, just that you should pay the full cost of those decisions.

    Perhaps you and Reid have both looked ahead and seen that the current trajectory is unsustainable and selected a backfire strategy:

    The more you scream about those who suggest change, especially Fundamental Change, the longer you can hold onto the privilage of Mass Over-Consumtion and neglect the need for Balance between Individual Rights and Community Responsibilities.

    Think you can hold out until your children have their’s?

    Time is running out. More and more want the resources you are OverConsuming.

    Preservation of democracy and free markets depend on a new trajectory.

    EMR

  32. NOT ED RISSE Avatar
    NOT ED RISSE

    E M Risse said, “You and Reid G. need to get together and decide if our work is that of a socialist or a fascist, there is a difference.”

    BOTH WANT CONTROL OVER OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES AND PROPERTY. BOTH LIMIT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND CHOICE.

    E M Risse said “We choose to think when attacked from both sides we must be close to the middle.”

    AH THE CONTROLLING MIDDLE. SOUNDS LIKE THE BUSINESS AS USUAL CROWD THAT HAS PROGRESSIVELY LIMITED OUR FREEDOM AND TAXED US TO DEATH TO SUBSIDIZE OTHER PEOPLE’S LIFESTYLES.

    E M Risse said, “We also think you protest too much.”

    WE ARE NOT SCREAMING L0UDLY ENOUGH. WE DEMAND NOTHING LESS THAN FREEDOM.

    E M Risse said, “I am not saying what you should do,”

    YOU DELUDE YOURSELF IF YOU THINK YOU ARE NOT ADVOCATING THE CONTROLLING HEAVY HAND OF GOVERNMENT TO CREATE YOUR VISION OF FUNCTIONAL HUMAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS.

    E M Risse said, “just that you should pay the full cost of those decisions.”

    FINALLY SOMETHING WE AGREE ON!

    E M Risse said, “Perhaps you and Reid have both looked ahead and seen that the current trajectory is unsustainable and selected a backfire strategy:”

    I DON’T KNOW REID AND WE ARE INCREASINGLY ON A TRAJECTORY THAT IS SUSTAINABLE.

    E M Risse said, “The more you scream about those who suggest change, especially Fundamental Change, the longer you can hold onto the privilage of Mass Over-Consumtion and neglect the need for Balance between Individual Rights and Community Responsibilities.”

    I DON’T OVER-CONSUME ANYTHING AND “Balance” IS JUST YOUR CODE WORD FOR MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

    E M Risse said, “Think you can hold out until your children have their’s?
    Time is running out. More and more want the resources you are OverConsuming.”

    OH PROPHET OF DOOM, MAY I ENLIGHTEN YOU WITH A FEW EXAMPLES OF HOW HUMANS ARE PROGRESSIVELY CREATING MORE WEALTH WITH LESS?

    TAKE COPPER. HOW MUCH COPPER HAS IT TAKEN TO RUN TELEPHONE WIRES TO EVERY HOME IN AMERICA? HOW MUCH COPPER WOULD IT TAKE TO WIRE EVERY HOME ON EARTH?

    GUESS WHAT. WE DON’T NEED TO ANYMORE. CELLPHONES NOW CARRY 50% OF ALL CALLS. COPPER LAND LINES ARE BECOMING IRRELEVANT AND PERSONAL PORTABLE COMMUNICATION IS SUPERIOR ANYWAY.

    MORE WEALTH, LESS RESOURCES.

    AND FIBEROPTIC LINES NOW CARRY MORE DATA THAN COPPER. THINK OF HOW MUCH COPPER WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO RECYCLE INTO SOMETHING ELSE WHEN WE ARE ABLE TO DISMANTLE THE IRRELEVANT UGLY COPPER LAND LINES STRUNG ALL OVER THIS GREAT COUNTRY. THINK OF WHO MUCH MORE BEAUTIFUL A DRIVE THROUGH HALLOWED GROUND WILL BE.

    OR TAKE THOSE BIG NEW 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MANSIONS GOING UP. THEY ARE SO WELL INSULATED AND SO ENERGY EFFICIENT THAT THE ELECTRIC BILL OFTEN AVERAGES ONLY $100 A MONTH COMPARED TO THE 50-YEAR-OLD 1,000 SQUARE FOOT POORLY INSULATED HOUSES WITH AN AVERAGE BILL OF $300.

    SO WHO IS OVER-CONSUMING? THE RICH FAMILY IN THE BIG NEW HOUSE CONSUMES LESS ENERGY THAN THE POOR IMMIGRANTS DOUBLED UP IN AN OLDER SMALL HOME.

    SO LET ME SUM UP. AS HUMANS BUILD NEWER BIGGER HOMES, WE ARE CONSUMING LESS ENERGY PER CAPITA. AS HUMANS SWITCH TO MOBILE PHONES AND FIBER OPTIC DATA TRANSMISSION, WE ARE CONSUMING FEWER RESOURCES.

    BIGGER HOMES, BETTER COMMUNICATION, LESS ENERGY, FEWER RESOURCES. SOUNDS LIKE A WINNING COMBINATION TO ME.

    HAVE YOU SEEN THE LATEST ON SOLAR POWER GENERATION? THIS IS CERTAINLY A TRAJECTORY THAT WILL ALLOW HUMANS TO CONSUME FAR MORE ENERGY.

    “42.8% Efficiency: A New Record for Solar Cells”

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/428_efficiency.php

    E M Risse said, “Preservation of democracy and free markets depend on a new trajectory.”

    YES, A NEW TRAJECTORY OF MORE FREEDOM!
    


  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What follows is not my writing. It is posted without attribution because I have lost the source.

    I have previously written that I believe people with vision similar to EMR are a danger to the environmental movement. Not Ed Risse apperntly agrees. So does the unnamed author of the following text.

    I cannot support the degree of his vituperation, I only present it as evidence of the backlash against us that is out there.

    RH

    “You must start with an understanding of the word. You can look it up in history, but Fascism is an appropriate description for the process whereby a group of people attempt to wrest control away from other people by force (specifically of other people’s property) and control it centrally. The eco movement’s focus on legislation and treaties, rather than free choice, is exactly that.

    ……

    There is a common thread running through today’s eco-movement, regardless of what particular group is involved: They all are striving for less individual rights, particularly less property rights, and more centralized control, i.e. fascism. Q.E.D.

    We can argue over whether a free market economy, based on the principles of liberty, on one hand, verses a centralized, authoritarian system wherein those in control see humanity as a stain on the face of the Earth on the other hand, is most likely to produce a prosperous, clean, healthy, successful, long-lasting society that would be worth living in. What we must first agree on is that fascism (now that you know what it means) is almost universally favored by the eco movement in this country. The use of force (laws) is their primary if not their sole focus. To the extent that they urge voluntary compliance, I submit, they are preparing their followers and priming the rest of us for future laws forcing compliance.

    As soon as you ecofascists start offering only free-market solutions to the problems you say in your wisdom exist, some of us who believe in freedom just might start taking you seriously. The problem is in the basic world-view, and that has to change first. Stop hating humanity, seeing freedom as loathsome and frightening, and start respecting humanity, seeing freedom as hope.

    On that note I will give you a practical example of what I mean: The Sierra Club spends enormous resources attempting to get legislation passed– land use restrictions, limits on businesses, etc.. The proper, polite, human rights-friendly, American method to achieve their stated goals (large tracts of land void of humanity, more animal habitats, etc.) to an extent far greater than mere legislation (which can be overturned at the next election cycle) would be to purchase those large tracts of land. I can’ remember that last time I saw then in a TV ad, trying to raise awareness or money. Instead they waste their money on lobbying efforts which must by necessity continue on without end if the laws they favor are to remain in force. By buying land, asking for voluntary conributions, or through a multitude of possible free market offerings, and nothing more, they would be favoring the same things that real Americans are favoring– respect for property rights, and low taxes. We wouldn’t be correctly referring to them as fascists, but would get along nicely with them as fellow Americans instead.

    Bottom line: You either respect humanity, respect human rights, and want to further a system of liberty, of which capitalism is an inseparable component (and are therefore an American) or you see humanity as a threat, a stain, a bunch of unworthy sinners, etc., and want to keep people from pursuing their dreams by using government as a means of initiating force to bend them to your will (and are therefore a fascist).”

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Crowded conditions” are either voluntary or imposed by government action. They are not an inevitable result of our present population.

    “Resource shortages” would get worse if there were far fewer people on the planet. This point might not be obvious so I will explain. Imagine you and a few hundred others are marooned on a large isolated island that in addition to the sand, has tillable soil, fresh water, metal ores and, deep underground, oil. How long before you will have tractors and cultivators such that you can raise a surplus of food? How long before you will have electrical power, air conditioning, computers, and cell phones? There are a great many things that are only possible because there is a large enough market to justify the initial investment.

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “When you grow up and learn that there must be a Balance between individual rights and community responsibilities, perhaps you will be ready for intelligent dialogue using your real name.

    Until then you make a joke of free speech, an important individual liberty.”

    Ed, you must recall that some of our founding fathers used anonymity or pseudonyms, precisely because free speech was squelched by an overabundance of government.

    Whether his name is attached or not, the correct way to counter him is with better ideas of your own, not joining him in denigration of others by insinuating he is a child.

    RH

  36. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    RH and Not Ed Risse, Other than getting upset by his emphasis on personal responsibility as well as personal rights, can you site instances where EMR would impose his vision on society? No, you can’t. EMR has repeatedly stated that he would rely primarily upon market principles and make everyone pay their location-variable costs. In other words, no more subsidies. He also advocates reorganizing local government to make government boundaries and powers overlap with the economic and social realities of where and how people live in order to help communities with a balance of jobs, housing and amenities. You can argue about the details of how that would happen, but how does that nullify anyone’s individual rights? How does that lead to fascism?

    Your comments strike me as utterly disconnected from reality. Perhaps you could go back through EMR’s writings and cite specific proposals that strike you as fascistic.

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “EMR has repeatedly stated that he would rely primarily upon market principles and make everyone pay their location-variable costs. In other words, no more subsidies.”

    Yes, but only if the costs are calculated according to his formulas. He frequently supports shared vehicle systems which depend heavily on subsidies. I don’t hear him suggestiong that they pay no more subsidies. the excess taxes that open space pays over services recieved amounts to a subsidy to the more urban areas. I don’t hear him pointing out that this is unfair. Instead he suggests that people who live in such places are actually displaced urban residents who don’t belong there and should be charged 10X more.

    So yes, if you accept his definitions, his metrics, and his statistics, then he is 100% correct, by definition.

    His plans for reorganizing government amount to several MORE layers of government, which can only result in more impositions, and higher costs. I never hear him suggest that maybe, just maybe, one of our biggest social responsibilities is to live and let live a little bit. Instead he proposes to send a bill for every imagined external cost, provided they fit his definition.

    His consistent insistence on the evils of short term profit, and emphasizing the long term good of the general public at the expense of individual freedoms has at the very least a familiar ring.

    If you want a specific instance, go back and read his proposal to confiscate the profits of the entertainment industry to subsidize education. That one was pretty over the top.

    I actually think EMR has some good ideas, but his PR campaign and his plan for implementation is a disaster, and hugely one-sided, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the tenor (and sometmes the accuracy) of his arguments is pretty widespread in the environmental press, as my unnamed source notes.

    When environmentalists attract labels such as tree huggers, granola nuts, eco-fascists, and even eco-terrorists, then it is time to think a little bit about what engenders such distaste.

    His wording and his argumentation are very clever: he doesn’t call me as a blockhead directly, but makes vague allusions. On the other hand he has dismissed entire categories of experts as no-nothings, and dismisses outright any observation that doesn’t fit his set of facts. Likewise, his statistics are very cleverly crafted.

    When he says things like people think they have the right to go whereever and whenever they want, it suggests that he thinks they don’t have that right. Restricting travel is one of the first things authoritarian governments do.

    I agree that we as Americans overconsume unneccesarily. I agree that our energy and economic trajectory is unsustainable. But his economic version of what to do about it amazes me.

    I agree he starts with some good premises. But I feel a huge difference between what he says he says, and the tenor of what he says. Apparently at least some other people do as well.

    Unlike them, I don’t suggest that he be censured: I just think we should contine to work on specifics: things we can measure and agree on. I’m willing to bow in the face of an inconvenient truth, but EMR simply dismisses them as wrong and misguided or “silly observations”.

    He thinks that Fundamental Change is the only answer. I think there are a hundred thousand little answers that may eventually lead to fundamental change, but that change is going to be driven by economics, not philosophy. In order to benefit from all those little changes, you have to accept that they will be driven by personal gains.

    I believe his version of a balance of jobs housing and amenities on 5% of the land, and land created in thin air over the highways is incompatible with economic realities.

    I think that if there are to be no more subsidies, then that means no subsidies for environmentalists either, which is pretty much what Measure 37 in Oregon was all about. It means no more subsides for mass transit, and parents of children that need education, etc. etc.

    I also think that the idea of no more subsidies is hogwash. Subsidies and incentives have an important role to play: they allow us to invest in things that have no short term profit. But they need to be fully based on a system wide, clear vision of what the ROI really is and what it means to whom, and for how long.

    When he starts speaking in plain language and makes proposals that make specific sense economically, he and others like him will be a lot more believable and will be perceived as a lot less threatening.

    I don’t think he should be censored, but if I was footing the bill, I’d wonder if my money was well spent.

    RH

  38. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Jim Bacon:

    Thank you for the help!

    When someone posts a direct quote that appears to be in conflict with what you state as our positon I will respond.

    You covered the myth that we propose to exercise some draconian control very well.

    I will comment later on energy effecient Mc Mansons.

    EMR

  39. NOT ED RISSE Avatar
    NOT ED RISSE

    RH and Anonymous, thanks for the good comments to my post.

    Jim

    You said Risse “…advocates reorganizing local government to make government boundaries and powers overlap with the economic and social realities of where and how people live in order to help communities with a balance of jobs, housing and amenities. You can argue about the details of how that would happen, but how does that nullify anyone’s individual rights? How does that lead to fascism?”

    Jim, I don’t need or want any government’s “help” to decide when, where, or how to build stores, houses, health clubs or anything else.

    If the government isn’t involved in regulating when, where, and how, then it really doesn’t matter what the government boundaries are.

    I would submit that Risse’s ideas about Fundamental Change in Human Governance are irrelevant at the end of the day. We need more freedom in human settlement patterns, not a different controlling government boundary.

    Ironically, some of the most controlling governments when it comes to land use are local governments. The small towns in Fairfax County like Vienna go so far as to dictate how many different colors a sign can have. As a result, Maple Avenue is the same boring commercial strip it has been for a century. It is stuck in time.

    Risse will perhaps appreciate that it was Vienna’s local small government mentality that was used as the “moral” platform to oppose Risse’s old boss Hazel’s mixed-use development proposals at the Vienna Metro (which is not actually in the Town of Vienna).

    It is not the boundaries of governance that matter so much as it is the attitude that government should even have anything to do with it. I see Risse as part of the “Business as Usual Crowd” that wants to tweak the rules instead of throwing out the rules which have failed.

    Government controlled human settlement patterns have been a complete and utter failure in this country.

    It doesn’t matter whether you call that government a dooryard, barnyard, cluster, or cloister.

    “Balance” is another code word Risse uses to support “control”.

    Ed Risse said, “You covered the myth that we propose to exercise some draconian control very well.”

    The key deception here is the phrase “draconian control”, as if the velvet gloved hand of soft tyranny is acceptable.

    Read this article on the absurdity of the velvet gloved soft tyranny the little guy faces today in trying to make his physical environment better.

    “man gets jail time
    for property fixes”

    http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/9406861.html

    Moving the tyrant to the dooryard does not remove the tyranny.

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yep. My favorite is the story of the woman in King county Washington. She bought a house that had a dump pile of discarde appliances at the back property line.

    She removed the appliances and got a $15,000 fine for destroying critical habitat: the vines that were covering the dump.

    RH

  41. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Not Ed Risse, Clearly, your problem is not just with EMR but with the entire ediface of state/local regulations governing land use. If you call EMR’s philosophy fascistic, then you need to apply the same label to the current regulatory regime that exists in nearly every county of Virginia and the United States. In other words, we live in a fascist state already.

    You can maintain that point of view if you want to, but lumping virtually everyone under the category of “fascist” makes it difficult to make meaningful distinctions. If you’ve read my writings, you know that I have been consistently critical of the heavy hand of government over land use. But I don’t find anything threatening about EMR’s philosophy.

    The fact is, EMR’s philosophy would mean a smaller role for government in many ways — relaxed land use regulation and fewer subsidies for special interests. He would move us in the direction opposite of what you term “fascism.”

    EMR’s call for “balance” would essentially create a road map to guide public investment in utilities, public services and transportation infrastructure — investment that government is already making. It also would act as a guide not-for-profit investment (higher education, hospitals, etc.) and private investment. A guide for market-based decisions, not a socialist or fascist diktat.

    You should take care to read what EMR writes — we have nearly five years worth of columns archived in Bacon’s Rebellion. Critique what he says, not the implications you draw from a hasty reading of what he says.

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “EMR’s philosophy would mean a smaller role for government in many ways — relaxed land use regulation and fewer subsidies for special interests”

    We must be reading a different EMR.

    I seem to recall him advocating several more levels of government. Why do we need more levels if they have a smaller role?

    He figures he can relax land use regulations by changing the economics, taxation, and billing for services in such a way that most land is worthless. Fewer land use regulations won’t mean much if there is no economic use. And we can see how much he hates profits by howe often he cites those that seek them.

    He even wants to save land by digging up old land and using it to create new land in mid air.

    Fascism was the word Mussolini used to describe the method by which he would achieve a pure communist state. We may have governments and regulations that are pretty screwed up, but I don’t think we have any governments yet that plan to perpetuate themselves by eliminating the voting box, for example.

    Even the most pugnacious overnment practitioners still hand over the reins when people want a change. So no, I dont think we have any current fascist governments, at present.

    EMR’s philosophy, as you call it, consistently states that there is only one answer, Fundamental Change and Functional Settlement Patterns, but only according to his definitions and statistics: anyone else is a boob.

    Not EMR has overstated his case in calling this fascistic, but it is pretty clear that EMR’s philosophy has only one solution, and it that respect it is similar.

    I once took a writing course which focused on the writng of demagogues. We examined all the tricks of argumentation, veiled references, half truths, truths to the extreme, demonization, flattery, and all the other tools of the trade.

    Whenever I read EMR’s stuff, I’m reminded of that course. It just goes to show you can be slick, and still be wrong.

    My point, however has nothing to do with EMR, or his writing. My point is that there are many environmental advocates out there and collectively they have initiated people to think like Not EMR. This happens for a reason and it damages all environmentalists.

    Rather than making apologies, we should confront those reasons head on, and fix them.

    RH

    RH

  43. NOT ED RISSE Avatar
    NOT ED RISSE

    Jim Bacon and Ed Risse

    Good job at setting up a straw man. Where on this blog did I call Risse a “fascist”?

    I do think Risse’s ideas are dangerous in the extreme and will lead to even more government control over our lives.

    For example, his “collectively (fewer capitas)” solution has led in China to the most grotesque results including forced abortion and forced sterilization.

    I once knew a woman who had been forcibly sterilized by Virginia as a child; on the grounds she was deemed unfit to reproduce.

    I do not want to see these ideas take root again in Virginia.

    Ideas have consequences.

  44. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Not Ed Risse, My apologies, you didn’t call EMR a “fascist.” You called him “an aging socialist totalitarian dinosaur.” My observations still apply.

Leave a Reply

Read More