Why dont you point out WHICH, of the facts presented, you disagree with? then you could state the facts that back up YOUR point, if any. Thats how a debate works. If you have no facts to back up your argument, and NONE have been presented, then maybe you should do your own research as part of an personal educational process, one that you could share with others here. Are you saying that NONE of the explanations offerred were accurate? If not, why not? It laid the causes of this crisis in several places, as there is plenty of blame to go around. If you arent going to give any real reasons why the figures presented arent accurate, let us know early so we wont have to waste our time reading those meaningless comments.
This is in response to a poster on MS.com that says anything coming from MSNBC is biased toward Obama. Several possible causes of this economic crisis was presented for discussion, from MSNBC.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
gamblers
Upon further review (and research), it appears that yes, Clinton DID ask Freddy and Fannie to relax their regulations as a means to allow more people to own homes. The intentions were good but there were little and NO oversight and regulation to decide who would realistically afford a home, or not, because of deregulation. Deregulation is a plank in the REPUBLICAN platform and allowed the predatory lenders and greedy bankers to get wealthy making deals they knew could not be justified economically. To buy a house hoping that the prices will continue going up is NOT an investment- its gambling. The lenders and real estate people MUST have known that bubble would eventually pop but really didnt care because THEY were doing REALLY WELL. Like in Vegas, most of the gamblers lose but the house cleans up. STRICT and tight oversight and enforcement is obviously needed- yesterday.
history rewrites itself
Are you suggesting that when Republicans receive campaign contributions they are NOT kickbacks disguised as contributions? Only the Democrats? Kickbacks are illegal, right? So why havent anybody be arrested? For the last CENTURY the Republicans have been the party of small government, the smaller the better so that theres NO interference with the MARKETS. Let the MARKETS decide is their mantra. Are you saying that in the past couple years the Republicans have changed their minds and WANT more government regulation? And the bigger government that comes with MORE regulation? A look at any political history book for the past century will suggest otherwise. Talk about rewriting history. Simply unbelievable, and not true.
commentary
Its the same old Republican line here- get govt out of the way, let the MARKET decide, etc. Well with deregulation we tried that approach and look where it got us. The proof is in the pudding. Deregulation DIDNT work. The crooks and greedy bankers took everything they could steal. These LESS government people must believe we dont need Social Security, or Medicare, Customs, or the FBI, or the military, or the EPA, etc etc-any government or regulation is BAD government. BS. Letting those in the market do as they wish has gotten us into a worldwide crisis, the likes of which we havent seen since the Depression. Is there anyone who is saying that deregulation has been a GOOD thing for anybody but the crooks and thieves? If so, please explain. I would be interested in hearing THAT explanation.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
commentary
Joe the Plumber got it wrong. Obamas plan specifically excludes small businesses. If he PERSONALLY makes m,ore than 250k his taxes will go up a little. Joe Lunchbucket is the guy earning 38k a year and raising a family on that gross sum. Its hard to empathize with a guy who ONLY clears 75k a year, barely SCRAPING BY. Thats TWICE what Joe Lunchbucket grosses. Is anybody claiming that 250k is NOT well-to-do? One percent of that net 75k is $750. Would that $750 put him in financial hardship? food stamps? It would mean a great deal to Joe Lunchbucket and his family. He is ready, willing, and able to work and has some marketable skills. He isnt a welfare cheat, drug addict, or a lazy bum, just an average worker. He just needs a little help right now, like a LOT of people. Thru no fault of his own, there is no work available. The greedy Wall Street crooks and thieves have run our financial syatem in the ground, and gotten wealthy as they did it. They should go to jail. Period. Do NOT pass go. Deregulation did NOT work, and that much is obvious. lack of oversight was an open invitation to steal, and they did. Now Joe Lunchbucket is being asked to bail their sorry butts out. Are they asking any more from business in this mess? No, its just Joe Lunchbucket and his taxes. Who can afford it less?
world water concerns
Water’s Urgent Message at the World Economic Forum
February 29, 2008
“One of the problems that we face is that climate change is on the ascendant, and people are not always making the links to water as they perhaps should. I think that’s coming and over the next two to three years water will progressively build into a really central component of the Davos agenda.” — John Elkington, SustainAbility
DAVOS, Switzerland — Water, water everywhere, so let us stop to think. The recent World Economic Forum at Davos put the substance that defines life (and economic bottom lines) at center stage, with at least seven sessions focused on water’s varied challenges, business impacts, policy and future.
But despite the fact that human beings themselves are comprised mostly of water, we are, also, only too human. The major buzz at Davos was about the things that often grab and distract us from the “big picture” the forum seeks: a precipitous plunge on Wall Street and a $7 billion flaming financial scandal in France.
It’s too easy to take water for granted, so kudos to U.N. Secretary General Ban-ki Moon, who put the put the bull’s eye into the headlines. “Water,” he announced, “is one of the most daunting challenges faced by the world today.”
I’d like to propose an alteration to that wise pronouncement. It’s true, our relationship to water will define our future in this century. But the challenge is not water itself, but the way we perceive it and ourselves. We have the technology. Many of the solutions are within reach. The necessities of long-term planning (read: climate, efficiency, cleaning up what we have) are clearer than ever to the business community. At the WEF, for example, both Pepsi and Coca-Cola announced funding for new initiatives to bring safe drinking water to children in Africa and other stressed areas in the developing world.What we lack is the ability to see with new eyes and the will to transform ourselves. We keep doing the same things, with results that achieve more of not enough. Despite the very real enthusiasm of the Davos leaders and the water community there, I feel a bit of deja vu. How far have we come on water?
In 2000, the UN rolled out its Millennium Development Goals in advance of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Laudable as they are, the goals barely reflect the sheer global will necessary to tackle the immense challenges of climate and water, not to mention poverty, biodiversity and other looming threats. Just before the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, at an organizational meeting at the Brazilian Embassy in Washington, Chris Flavin of WorldWatch told us, “These are not easy times for social/environmental issues. It’s easier to come up with a list of failures.” Nitin Desai, then Secretary General for the WSSD implored: “We’ve got to get up, get going and do something.”It’s been a long six years since, and there have been failures — not in intent, but in mass momentum. 2003 brought us the International Year of Freshwater and, soon after, Water for Life Decade (which expires in 2015), and World Water Forums in Kyoto and Mexico City.
Thankfully, each of these have been steps forward, but not leaps. Maybe the world wasn’t ready to hear that it was running dry. Could that be changing?
The Water for the Poor Act passed in late 2005. Only two years later, we were learning that the developed world, in places such as Atlanta the Colorado plateau, is not immune to water challenges. And more and more leaders, like those gathered in the Congress Centre in Davos, are seeing the connections between water, economic security and their shareholders.
But, still, where’s the tipping point for water? The fulcrum where awareness meets action? When will taxpayers be willing to part with billions of dollars to clean up the U.S. Great Lakes, enact stiff conservation measures and increase foreign aid through water programs?”
We’ll need to do some serious myth-busting,” said Brian Collins, WEF participant. “The old myths for water no longer work.”These are the myths we need to bust, he explains to me at a late-night cafe just down a snow-covered path from the highly secured hub of activity in Davos: “Water is free, it’s eternal, infinite, forever. Water always cleans itself. Water is where we throw everything away. Water is a gift from God that stays pure.”Beyond the reasoned, but heavily laden rhetoric of the water experts, water needs a new narrative for the 21st century. A rich tapestry of commitment, awareness, engagement, collaboration all topped with a dose of harsh reality.
Did it find one in Davos?”
In a word, Yes. Yes. Yes,” said Margaret Catley-Carlson with enthusiasm. She’s chairperson of the Global Water Partnership, the collaborative organization formed by the World Bank, UNDP and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. The response may take a while to filter through and gain the mindshare, she believes, but we’re about to be hit by a tsunami of interest from the corporate sector.”
What’s great about this meeting,” Catley-Carlson said enthusiastically during a lunch break, “is that the business community is saying, ‘Let’s talk about this.’ I’m very glad when they talk about bringing drinking water to people that don’t have it. [But businesses] are now talking about the self-interest of well-managed water. And I think that that’s quite a big step forward.” (see video interview and transcript in another blog entry)
Seven forum sessions focused on water (schedule and summaries are also included in a separate entry) and the issue got off to a vigorous start with Ban Ki-moon’s emphatic description of water scarcity and management as humanity’s greatest challenge — equal to or greater than climate change.”
The challenge of securing safe and plentiful water for all,” Ban said, “is one of the most daunting challenges faced by the world today.” This echoes a message he delivered with little fanfare in December at the Asia-Pacific Water Summit. His words may be the same, but the audience, comprised of global leaders and some of the most successful businesspeople in human history, carried more weight with the promise that it would trickle through the ranks.Water’s urgent message in Davos was diluted somewhat by news of the U.S. economic decline and the breaking story of Societe General’s rogue trader who rattled the European financial industry. It may take a few more turns, but the rivers of awareness are touching many shores. Many credit the WEF with giving climate a significant boost of business cred when it was reached similar pinnacle status in 2007.
Even with the distractions (the panoply of water sessions received modest media attention), John Elkington, noted “dean of the corporate-responsibility movement,” remains optimistic that water received the long-term sling-shot effect from this year’s meeting. Elkington, founder of SustainAbility the London-based consultancy, said that Davos priorities inevitably become global business priorities. (see video interview and transcript in separate blog entry)”
I think the way the Davos community responds to big issues is to pick them up and play with them for a while,” Elkington said. “But longer term, the ideal is that the new perspectives and priorities are shot through everything that happens here. So last year for example, climate change was a very big issue. It is this time too. But the real thinking and action is tending to happen in some of the parallel and side events. My hope would be over the next 18 months to a year water comes center stage at Davos. But within a very short period after that it’s shot through everything the World Economic Forum and its partners do.”
Elkington echoed Ban-ki Moon’s assertion that water was a challenge equal to climate. “One of the problems that we face is that climate change is on the ascendant, and people are not always making the links to water as they perhaps should,” Elkington said. “I think that’s coming and over the next two to three years water will progressively build into a really central component of the Davos agenda.”
So did a few days in the Swiss Alps help craft the new myths for water?
They certainly upped the buzz-factor for words such as “water footprint” and “supply chain sustainability.” Obvious players such as Nestle, Coca-Cola and Pepsi painted a potentially grave picture for the future — and their shareholders — if they, their suppliers and their customers fail to recognize and respond to the water crisis. And they worked hard to demonstrate proactive, progressive response. Even not-so-obvious players from manufacturing, shipping and the service industry are starting to think about how water impacts their products and services. Said one senior executive of a major consulting firm: “This is the next big issue and my clients want to know how it will affect them.”
Klaus Schwab, the forum’s ubiquitous host and founder, helped put water on this gilded stage with a bottom-line, business focus. But he seemed to do it with humility, sincerity and hope. “The Davos Man and Woman,” he said in a press release, “are aware of all the challenges and, in a pragmatic way, they do what they can to mitigate the risks and address the challenges. They also see the opportunities in the world. But if we don’t address the challenges, even the greatest opportunities will not be enough to guarantee the future of humankind.”I’ve come back to my draft of this blog several times, not sure whether to be optimistic or pessimistic. I’ve heard the words before, from the Powerpoint plenaries at world water forums to the halls of the U.N. during the Commission on Sustainable Development meeting series. But never before, I’m beginning to feel, have so many of the world’s corporate leaders made the connection that water is life, for them, their businesses and the rest of us on the blue planet.
February 29, 2008
“One of the problems that we face is that climate change is on the ascendant, and people are not always making the links to water as they perhaps should. I think that’s coming and over the next two to three years water will progressively build into a really central component of the Davos agenda.” — John Elkington, SustainAbility
DAVOS, Switzerland — Water, water everywhere, so let us stop to think. The recent World Economic Forum at Davos put the substance that defines life (and economic bottom lines) at center stage, with at least seven sessions focused on water’s varied challenges, business impacts, policy and future.
But despite the fact that human beings themselves are comprised mostly of water, we are, also, only too human. The major buzz at Davos was about the things that often grab and distract us from the “big picture” the forum seeks: a precipitous plunge on Wall Street and a $7 billion flaming financial scandal in France.
It’s too easy to take water for granted, so kudos to U.N. Secretary General Ban-ki Moon, who put the put the bull’s eye into the headlines. “Water,” he announced, “is one of the most daunting challenges faced by the world today.”
I’d like to propose an alteration to that wise pronouncement. It’s true, our relationship to water will define our future in this century. But the challenge is not water itself, but the way we perceive it and ourselves. We have the technology. Many of the solutions are within reach. The necessities of long-term planning (read: climate, efficiency, cleaning up what we have) are clearer than ever to the business community. At the WEF, for example, both Pepsi and Coca-Cola announced funding for new initiatives to bring safe drinking water to children in Africa and other stressed areas in the developing world.What we lack is the ability to see with new eyes and the will to transform ourselves. We keep doing the same things, with results that achieve more of not enough. Despite the very real enthusiasm of the Davos leaders and the water community there, I feel a bit of deja vu. How far have we come on water?
In 2000, the UN rolled out its Millennium Development Goals in advance of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Laudable as they are, the goals barely reflect the sheer global will necessary to tackle the immense challenges of climate and water, not to mention poverty, biodiversity and other looming threats. Just before the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, at an organizational meeting at the Brazilian Embassy in Washington, Chris Flavin of WorldWatch told us, “These are not easy times for social/environmental issues. It’s easier to come up with a list of failures.” Nitin Desai, then Secretary General for the WSSD implored: “We’ve got to get up, get going and do something.”It’s been a long six years since, and there have been failures — not in intent, but in mass momentum. 2003 brought us the International Year of Freshwater and, soon after, Water for Life Decade (which expires in 2015), and World Water Forums in Kyoto and Mexico City.
Thankfully, each of these have been steps forward, but not leaps. Maybe the world wasn’t ready to hear that it was running dry. Could that be changing?
The Water for the Poor Act passed in late 2005. Only two years later, we were learning that the developed world, in places such as Atlanta the Colorado plateau, is not immune to water challenges. And more and more leaders, like those gathered in the Congress Centre in Davos, are seeing the connections between water, economic security and their shareholders.
But, still, where’s the tipping point for water? The fulcrum where awareness meets action? When will taxpayers be willing to part with billions of dollars to clean up the U.S. Great Lakes, enact stiff conservation measures and increase foreign aid through water programs?”
We’ll need to do some serious myth-busting,” said Brian Collins, WEF participant. “The old myths for water no longer work.”These are the myths we need to bust, he explains to me at a late-night cafe just down a snow-covered path from the highly secured hub of activity in Davos: “Water is free, it’s eternal, infinite, forever. Water always cleans itself. Water is where we throw everything away. Water is a gift from God that stays pure.”Beyond the reasoned, but heavily laden rhetoric of the water experts, water needs a new narrative for the 21st century. A rich tapestry of commitment, awareness, engagement, collaboration all topped with a dose of harsh reality.
Did it find one in Davos?”
In a word, Yes. Yes. Yes,” said Margaret Catley-Carlson with enthusiasm. She’s chairperson of the Global Water Partnership, the collaborative organization formed by the World Bank, UNDP and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. The response may take a while to filter through and gain the mindshare, she believes, but we’re about to be hit by a tsunami of interest from the corporate sector.”
What’s great about this meeting,” Catley-Carlson said enthusiastically during a lunch break, “is that the business community is saying, ‘Let’s talk about this.’ I’m very glad when they talk about bringing drinking water to people that don’t have it. [But businesses] are now talking about the self-interest of well-managed water. And I think that that’s quite a big step forward.” (see video interview and transcript in another blog entry)
Seven forum sessions focused on water (schedule and summaries are also included in a separate entry) and the issue got off to a vigorous start with Ban Ki-moon’s emphatic description of water scarcity and management as humanity’s greatest challenge — equal to or greater than climate change.”
The challenge of securing safe and plentiful water for all,” Ban said, “is one of the most daunting challenges faced by the world today.” This echoes a message he delivered with little fanfare in December at the Asia-Pacific Water Summit. His words may be the same, but the audience, comprised of global leaders and some of the most successful businesspeople in human history, carried more weight with the promise that it would trickle through the ranks.Water’s urgent message in Davos was diluted somewhat by news of the U.S. economic decline and the breaking story of Societe General’s rogue trader who rattled the European financial industry. It may take a few more turns, but the rivers of awareness are touching many shores. Many credit the WEF with giving climate a significant boost of business cred when it was reached similar pinnacle status in 2007.
Even with the distractions (the panoply of water sessions received modest media attention), John Elkington, noted “dean of the corporate-responsibility movement,” remains optimistic that water received the long-term sling-shot effect from this year’s meeting. Elkington, founder of SustainAbility the London-based consultancy, said that Davos priorities inevitably become global business priorities. (see video interview and transcript in separate blog entry)”
I think the way the Davos community responds to big issues is to pick them up and play with them for a while,” Elkington said. “But longer term, the ideal is that the new perspectives and priorities are shot through everything that happens here. So last year for example, climate change was a very big issue. It is this time too. But the real thinking and action is tending to happen in some of the parallel and side events. My hope would be over the next 18 months to a year water comes center stage at Davos. But within a very short period after that it’s shot through everything the World Economic Forum and its partners do.”
Elkington echoed Ban-ki Moon’s assertion that water was a challenge equal to climate. “One of the problems that we face is that climate change is on the ascendant, and people are not always making the links to water as they perhaps should,” Elkington said. “I think that’s coming and over the next two to three years water will progressively build into a really central component of the Davos agenda.”
So did a few days in the Swiss Alps help craft the new myths for water?
They certainly upped the buzz-factor for words such as “water footprint” and “supply chain sustainability.” Obvious players such as Nestle, Coca-Cola and Pepsi painted a potentially grave picture for the future — and their shareholders — if they, their suppliers and their customers fail to recognize and respond to the water crisis. And they worked hard to demonstrate proactive, progressive response. Even not-so-obvious players from manufacturing, shipping and the service industry are starting to think about how water impacts their products and services. Said one senior executive of a major consulting firm: “This is the next big issue and my clients want to know how it will affect them.”
Klaus Schwab, the forum’s ubiquitous host and founder, helped put water on this gilded stage with a bottom-line, business focus. But he seemed to do it with humility, sincerity and hope. “The Davos Man and Woman,” he said in a press release, “are aware of all the challenges and, in a pragmatic way, they do what they can to mitigate the risks and address the challenges. They also see the opportunities in the world. But if we don’t address the challenges, even the greatest opportunities will not be enough to guarantee the future of humankind.”I’ve come back to my draft of this blog several times, not sure whether to be optimistic or pessimistic. I’ve heard the words before, from the Powerpoint plenaries at world water forums to the halls of the U.N. during the Commission on Sustainable Development meeting series. But never before, I’m beginning to feel, have so many of the world’s corporate leaders made the connection that water is life, for them, their businesses and the rest of us on the blue planet.
World Edition Business Edition Science + Tech Edition circleofblue.org
Arts
Water Policy Science + Tech
Climate Drought Education Energy Environment Health Reports & Studies Solutions Statistics World
Circle of Blue Reports, Climate, Drought, North America, Reports & Studies, World / U.S. faces era of water scarcity U.S. faces era of water scarcity
July 9, 2008
Profligate use hurts in unexpected places
Quest for new supplies nationwide
Striking symbols of American engineering prowess, Lake Mead and the Hoover Dam stand in testimony to the U.S. spirit of growth and prosperity. But the 28.5 million acre feet Lake Mead is shrinking, as an ever-thirsty nation sprawls across the desert and consumes the waters of the Colorado in an increasingly unsustainable way.
The Ogallala Aquifer, supplying groundwater to the Great Plains, at record lows in some areas
World’s largest freshwater supply– the Great Lakes basin — threatened by climate change experts warn
Water shortages hit U.S. cities as restrictions are tightened, rates increased
Population growth stretches water supplies thin, challenges sustainable management
Increasing awareness of pending U.S. water crisis could mitigate long-term damage
Video: writer Keith Schneider
Video: Circle of Blue science advisor and president of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick
Video: former NASA astronaut and MIR cosmonaut, Jerry Linenger
Lake Mead, the American Southwest, and water: an interview with Tim Barnett
The Great Lakes Compact and the potential privatization of water: an interview with James M. Olson
Present U.S. water usage unsustainable: an interview with Dr. Peter Gleick By Keith Schneider
Circle of Blue
Just as diminishing supplies of oil and natural gas are wrenching the economy and producing changes in lifestyles built on the principle of plenty, states and communities across the country are confronting another significant impediment to the American way of life: increased competition for scarce water.
Scientists and resource specialists say freshwater scarcity, even in unexpected places, threatens farm productivity, limits growth, increases business expenses, and drains local treasuries.
In May, for example, Brockton, Massachusetts, inaugurated a brand-new, $60 million reverse osmosis desalinization plant to supply a portion of its drinking water. The Atlantic coast city, which receives four feet of rain annually, was nevertheless so short of freshwater that it was converting brackish water into water people actually could drink.
Builders in the Southeast are confronting limits to planting gardens and lawns for new houses as a result of local water restrictions prompted by a continuing drought. The Ogallala Aquifer, the vast underground reservoir beneath the Great Plains, is steadily being depleted. California experienced the driest spring on record this year.
And scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego forecast that within 13 years Lake Mead and Lake Powell along the Colorado River, the two largest reservoirs in the southwest United States, could become “dead pool” mud puddles.
…we don’t have anybody thinking long range, at the big picture…“The whole picture is not pretty, and I don’t think that anyone has looked at the subject with the point of view of what’s sustainable,” said Tim Barnett, a research marine geophysicist at Scripps and co-author of the the study. “We don’t have anybody thinking long range, at the big picture that would put the clamps on large-scale development.”
Era of Water Scarcity
“I truly believe we’re moving into an era of water scarcity throughout the United States,” said Peter Gleick, science advisor to Circle of Blue and president of the Pacific Institute, a think tank specializing in water issues based in Oakland, California. “That by itself is going to force us to adopt more efficient management techniques.”
The U.S. Drought Monitor, a weekly online report produced by the Department of Agriculture and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, shows that severe drought still grips much of the American Southeast, is spreading east from California across the Rocky Mountains, and has also settled in the Texas Panhandle and parts of Oklahoma and Colorado.
While agriculture in the Colorado Basin faces shortages, farmers to the east in the high plains — tapping the Ogallala Aquifer — have progressively seen their wells dry up. The aquifer is the largest in the United States and sees a depletion rate of some 12 billion cubic meters a year, a quantity equivalent to 18 times the annual flow of the Colorado River. Since pumping started in the 1940s, Ogallala water levels have dropped by more than 100 feet (30 meters) in some areas.
In an interview with Circle of Blue, Kevin Dennehey, program coordinator for the Ground-Water Resources Program at the U.S. Geological Survey, said, “The problem with the aquifer is that it’s a limited resource. There is not an unlimited supply, so the recharge is much less than the withdrawals.”
There is no other water available.The prognosis for farmers, whose irrigation accounts for 94 percent of the groundwater use on the high plains, does not look optimistic. In the future, irrigation may not be possible at all as the levels continue to drop past the well intakes of farmers. More likely, before the pumping stops, the cost of drilling and maintaining deeper wells may exceed the value of what can be grown, severely limiting the farmland’s value. “There is no other water available,” said Dennehey.
Receding Water in Great Lakes, Other Regions
Declining water levels affect the Great Lakes, too. In a paper published late last year, scientists projected that over the next three decades or so, water levels in Lake Erie, which supplies drinking water to more than 11 million people, could fall three to six feet as a result of climate change.
“We’ll have more wetland and coastal habitat and shallower water,” said John Hartig, manager of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge in Michigan. “The falling water levels also have huge implications for power plants. Think of power plants designing their water intakes to draw water from a particular depth, at a particular distance offshore. If you water levels drop 1-2 meters 40 years from now, that’s going to affect all water intakes.”
In an effort to curb draws on the Great Lakes and further protect the basin’s water resources, eight states and two Canadian provinces have passed the Great Lakes compact — an agreement that is intended to prevent the exportation of Great Lakes water to other regions. The compact now needs to be approved by the U.S. Congress before it can become law. (Read an interview about the Compact with James M. Olson, one of America’s preeminent attorneys specializing in water- and land-use law.)
The Southeast has been hard hit as well. Authorities in southern Florida issued water restrictions earlier this year. In August of 2007, city officials in Greensboro, North Carolina fined homeowners associations for watering lawns, washing sidewalks, and other violations of emergency restrictions on water use that were prompted by the region’s severe drought.
In Atlanta, where a severe drought also persists, authorities pressed residents to reduce water use, successfully. Then leaders of the city’s Watershed Management Department, concerned about declining revenue to operate the system, asked permission to raise rates. Officials in Fulton County, where Atlanta is located, did the same thing, praising residents for their efforts at conservation — then increasing their rates by 15 percent. If approved by the city council, the average residential water bill in Atlanta would jump from $84 to $107 next year.
Causes: Climate Change, Population Growth, Profligate Use
Though there is disagreement in the scientific community about when the southeast drought will end, or how low water levels might get in the Great Lakes, most experts say that American water reserves are changing, and in many cases dwindling.
One reason is global warming, which is altering precipitation patterns — producing more droughts in some regions, more flooding in others, and generally making weather patterns unpredictable, thus limiting options for response to extreme conditions. Soil erosion, leaking pipes that are expensive to fix, and an aversion to conservation also are mentioned as causes of scarcity. Another is the country’s growing population, expected to reach 450 million by the middle of the century, or roughly 50 percent more people than now.
The results are unmistakable, especially in California. In June, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a statewide water emergency, the first since 1991. Though the winter snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, which produces much of the state’s water, was higher than last season, California has had the driest spring on record. Reservoirs are just two-thirds full. Leaders of the state’s fast-growing communities have asked residents to curtail watering lawns and washing cars. In northern California, the air last week was choked by smoke from some 800 forest and grass fires, the highest number on record this early in the fire season.
In 2002, California put into effect a state law that requires developers to prove that new projects have a plan for providing at least 20 years worth of water before local water authorities can approve their projects. For the first time, according to a report in June in the New York Times, several local governments in southern California are actually enforcing the law: They’re requiring developers to prove where new homes will secure their water, and in some cases delaying construction permits.
But even in California, where the state’s 37 million residents live in a real-life theme ride of natural threats – droughts, fires, floods and earthquakes – there is no sense of crisis.
Not Seen as Emergency, Yet
The gravity of the situation hasn’t set in for most Americans. In Atlanta, where drought dramatically lowered Lake Lanier, the region’s primary reservoir, water scarcity is generally seen as temporary, and not related to how the region has grown.
“As an observer of water in the West, as a journalist and a reader of history, I would venture that water scarcity has rarely, if ever, been a long-term limit to growth,” said Jon Christensen, a researcher at the Bill Lane Center for the Study of the North American West at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. “Short-term moratoria on building permits have happened in various places around the West in the past, including Las Vegas. They are usually, in my view, shots across the bows of developers and elected officials that stimulate the search for new deals to bring water from other sources at whatever cost is necessary, so that building can continue.”
In 2003, the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, published a survey that found water managers in 36 states “anticipate water shortages locally, regionally or statewide within the next ten years.”
The study has proved disturbingly prophetic, and nowhere more so than on the Colorado Plateau and the rest of the American Southwest. The region is in the ninth year of a persistent drought that continues to leave Las Vegas worried.
On June 6, during a congressional briefing, Gregory J. McCabe, a research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, presented a study showing that even a 1.5-degree increase in the overall temperature of the Southwest due to climate change will decrease the Colorado River’s flow. That, he said, increases the likelihood that it will fall short of the amount needed to meet the annual water allocations upon which Nevada, six other states, and 25 million people rely. The Hoover Dam, moreover, will not be able to supply nearly the same level of electric power to Las Vegas as it does today.
That’s desert. It was never meant to have cities. There are millions of people there, and they all have one water supply, only one, the Colorado.“You’ve got a river now that is stretched totally thin, and all the water is being used,” said Barnett, of the Scripps Institution. “There is no excess water. You’re getting less and less water over the decades, so it’s going to be a continuing, festering thing that will get worse,” he added. “That’s desert. It was never meant to have cities. There are millions of people there, and they all have one water supply, only one: the Colorado.”
As Peter Curtiss, an engineer and head of Curtiss Engineering in Boulder, Colorado, noted, “People assume these things are going to be available. We’ve been trained ever since the windmill pumped up water from the farm. Water, electricity and natural gas: When you buy a house, you expect that those services will be there, and the thought of having a house without any one of those seems absurd.”
Managing the Colorado River system and other U.S. water resources in a sustainable way poses great technological, political and social challenges. But, as the Pacific Institute’s Gleick said, “If we continue on our current path, continuing to do things the way we’re doing them, we’re going to be much worse off in five or ten years, or in the coming decades, because the way we manage water now is inappropriate. It’s not sustainable. We over-pump our groundwater. We take water from ecosystems. We don’t think about how we grow and where we grow our population.”
Water and electricity, and natural gas: when you buy a house you expect that those services will be there and the thought of having a house without any one of those seems absurd.Freshwater scarcity is proving to be the new risk to local economies and regional development plans across the country. Just like the rising price of gasoline, the expanding number of home foreclosures, stagnant incomes, and several other stubborn 21st-century trends, water is imposing limits on how America grows.
“So the business-as-usual future is a bad one,” Gleick continued. “We know that in five years we’ll be in trouble, but it doesn’t have to be that way. If there were more education and awareness about water issues, if we started to really think about the natural limits about where humans and ecosystems have to work together to deal with water, and if we were to start to think about efficient use of water, then we could reduce the severity of the problems enormously. I’m just not sure we’re going to.”
Arts
Water Policy Science + Tech
Climate Drought Education Energy Environment Health Reports & Studies Solutions Statistics World
Circle of Blue Reports, Climate, Drought, North America, Reports & Studies, World / U.S. faces era of water scarcity U.S. faces era of water scarcity
July 9, 2008
Profligate use hurts in unexpected places
Quest for new supplies nationwide
Striking symbols of American engineering prowess, Lake Mead and the Hoover Dam stand in testimony to the U.S. spirit of growth and prosperity. But the 28.5 million acre feet Lake Mead is shrinking, as an ever-thirsty nation sprawls across the desert and consumes the waters of the Colorado in an increasingly unsustainable way.
The Ogallala Aquifer, supplying groundwater to the Great Plains, at record lows in some areas
World’s largest freshwater supply– the Great Lakes basin — threatened by climate change experts warn
Water shortages hit U.S. cities as restrictions are tightened, rates increased
Population growth stretches water supplies thin, challenges sustainable management
Increasing awareness of pending U.S. water crisis could mitigate long-term damage
Video: writer Keith Schneider
Video: Circle of Blue science advisor and president of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick
Video: former NASA astronaut and MIR cosmonaut, Jerry Linenger
Lake Mead, the American Southwest, and water: an interview with Tim Barnett
The Great Lakes Compact and the potential privatization of water: an interview with James M. Olson
Present U.S. water usage unsustainable: an interview with Dr. Peter Gleick By Keith Schneider
Circle of Blue
Just as diminishing supplies of oil and natural gas are wrenching the economy and producing changes in lifestyles built on the principle of plenty, states and communities across the country are confronting another significant impediment to the American way of life: increased competition for scarce water.
Scientists and resource specialists say freshwater scarcity, even in unexpected places, threatens farm productivity, limits growth, increases business expenses, and drains local treasuries.
In May, for example, Brockton, Massachusetts, inaugurated a brand-new, $60 million reverse osmosis desalinization plant to supply a portion of its drinking water. The Atlantic coast city, which receives four feet of rain annually, was nevertheless so short of freshwater that it was converting brackish water into water people actually could drink.
Builders in the Southeast are confronting limits to planting gardens and lawns for new houses as a result of local water restrictions prompted by a continuing drought. The Ogallala Aquifer, the vast underground reservoir beneath the Great Plains, is steadily being depleted. California experienced the driest spring on record this year.
And scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego forecast that within 13 years Lake Mead and Lake Powell along the Colorado River, the two largest reservoirs in the southwest United States, could become “dead pool” mud puddles.
…we don’t have anybody thinking long range, at the big picture…“The whole picture is not pretty, and I don’t think that anyone has looked at the subject with the point of view of what’s sustainable,” said Tim Barnett, a research marine geophysicist at Scripps and co-author of the the study. “We don’t have anybody thinking long range, at the big picture that would put the clamps on large-scale development.”
Era of Water Scarcity
“I truly believe we’re moving into an era of water scarcity throughout the United States,” said Peter Gleick, science advisor to Circle of Blue and president of the Pacific Institute, a think tank specializing in water issues based in Oakland, California. “That by itself is going to force us to adopt more efficient management techniques.”
The U.S. Drought Monitor, a weekly online report produced by the Department of Agriculture and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, shows that severe drought still grips much of the American Southeast, is spreading east from California across the Rocky Mountains, and has also settled in the Texas Panhandle and parts of Oklahoma and Colorado.
While agriculture in the Colorado Basin faces shortages, farmers to the east in the high plains — tapping the Ogallala Aquifer — have progressively seen their wells dry up. The aquifer is the largest in the United States and sees a depletion rate of some 12 billion cubic meters a year, a quantity equivalent to 18 times the annual flow of the Colorado River. Since pumping started in the 1940s, Ogallala water levels have dropped by more than 100 feet (30 meters) in some areas.
In an interview with Circle of Blue, Kevin Dennehey, program coordinator for the Ground-Water Resources Program at the U.S. Geological Survey, said, “The problem with the aquifer is that it’s a limited resource. There is not an unlimited supply, so the recharge is much less than the withdrawals.”
There is no other water available.The prognosis for farmers, whose irrigation accounts for 94 percent of the groundwater use on the high plains, does not look optimistic. In the future, irrigation may not be possible at all as the levels continue to drop past the well intakes of farmers. More likely, before the pumping stops, the cost of drilling and maintaining deeper wells may exceed the value of what can be grown, severely limiting the farmland’s value. “There is no other water available,” said Dennehey.
Receding Water in Great Lakes, Other Regions
Declining water levels affect the Great Lakes, too. In a paper published late last year, scientists projected that over the next three decades or so, water levels in Lake Erie, which supplies drinking water to more than 11 million people, could fall three to six feet as a result of climate change.
“We’ll have more wetland and coastal habitat and shallower water,” said John Hartig, manager of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge in Michigan. “The falling water levels also have huge implications for power plants. Think of power plants designing their water intakes to draw water from a particular depth, at a particular distance offshore. If you water levels drop 1-2 meters 40 years from now, that’s going to affect all water intakes.”
In an effort to curb draws on the Great Lakes and further protect the basin’s water resources, eight states and two Canadian provinces have passed the Great Lakes compact — an agreement that is intended to prevent the exportation of Great Lakes water to other regions. The compact now needs to be approved by the U.S. Congress before it can become law. (Read an interview about the Compact with James M. Olson, one of America’s preeminent attorneys specializing in water- and land-use law.)
The Southeast has been hard hit as well. Authorities in southern Florida issued water restrictions earlier this year. In August of 2007, city officials in Greensboro, North Carolina fined homeowners associations for watering lawns, washing sidewalks, and other violations of emergency restrictions on water use that were prompted by the region’s severe drought.
In Atlanta, where a severe drought also persists, authorities pressed residents to reduce water use, successfully. Then leaders of the city’s Watershed Management Department, concerned about declining revenue to operate the system, asked permission to raise rates. Officials in Fulton County, where Atlanta is located, did the same thing, praising residents for their efforts at conservation — then increasing their rates by 15 percent. If approved by the city council, the average residential water bill in Atlanta would jump from $84 to $107 next year.
Causes: Climate Change, Population Growth, Profligate Use
Though there is disagreement in the scientific community about when the southeast drought will end, or how low water levels might get in the Great Lakes, most experts say that American water reserves are changing, and in many cases dwindling.
One reason is global warming, which is altering precipitation patterns — producing more droughts in some regions, more flooding in others, and generally making weather patterns unpredictable, thus limiting options for response to extreme conditions. Soil erosion, leaking pipes that are expensive to fix, and an aversion to conservation also are mentioned as causes of scarcity. Another is the country’s growing population, expected to reach 450 million by the middle of the century, or roughly 50 percent more people than now.
The results are unmistakable, especially in California. In June, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a statewide water emergency, the first since 1991. Though the winter snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, which produces much of the state’s water, was higher than last season, California has had the driest spring on record. Reservoirs are just two-thirds full. Leaders of the state’s fast-growing communities have asked residents to curtail watering lawns and washing cars. In northern California, the air last week was choked by smoke from some 800 forest and grass fires, the highest number on record this early in the fire season.
In 2002, California put into effect a state law that requires developers to prove that new projects have a plan for providing at least 20 years worth of water before local water authorities can approve their projects. For the first time, according to a report in June in the New York Times, several local governments in southern California are actually enforcing the law: They’re requiring developers to prove where new homes will secure their water, and in some cases delaying construction permits.
But even in California, where the state’s 37 million residents live in a real-life theme ride of natural threats – droughts, fires, floods and earthquakes – there is no sense of crisis.
Not Seen as Emergency, Yet
The gravity of the situation hasn’t set in for most Americans. In Atlanta, where drought dramatically lowered Lake Lanier, the region’s primary reservoir, water scarcity is generally seen as temporary, and not related to how the region has grown.
“As an observer of water in the West, as a journalist and a reader of history, I would venture that water scarcity has rarely, if ever, been a long-term limit to growth,” said Jon Christensen, a researcher at the Bill Lane Center for the Study of the North American West at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. “Short-term moratoria on building permits have happened in various places around the West in the past, including Las Vegas. They are usually, in my view, shots across the bows of developers and elected officials that stimulate the search for new deals to bring water from other sources at whatever cost is necessary, so that building can continue.”
In 2003, the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, published a survey that found water managers in 36 states “anticipate water shortages locally, regionally or statewide within the next ten years.”
The study has proved disturbingly prophetic, and nowhere more so than on the Colorado Plateau and the rest of the American Southwest. The region is in the ninth year of a persistent drought that continues to leave Las Vegas worried.
On June 6, during a congressional briefing, Gregory J. McCabe, a research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, presented a study showing that even a 1.5-degree increase in the overall temperature of the Southwest due to climate change will decrease the Colorado River’s flow. That, he said, increases the likelihood that it will fall short of the amount needed to meet the annual water allocations upon which Nevada, six other states, and 25 million people rely. The Hoover Dam, moreover, will not be able to supply nearly the same level of electric power to Las Vegas as it does today.
That’s desert. It was never meant to have cities. There are millions of people there, and they all have one water supply, only one, the Colorado.“You’ve got a river now that is stretched totally thin, and all the water is being used,” said Barnett, of the Scripps Institution. “There is no excess water. You’re getting less and less water over the decades, so it’s going to be a continuing, festering thing that will get worse,” he added. “That’s desert. It was never meant to have cities. There are millions of people there, and they all have one water supply, only one: the Colorado.”
As Peter Curtiss, an engineer and head of Curtiss Engineering in Boulder, Colorado, noted, “People assume these things are going to be available. We’ve been trained ever since the windmill pumped up water from the farm. Water, electricity and natural gas: When you buy a house, you expect that those services will be there, and the thought of having a house without any one of those seems absurd.”
Managing the Colorado River system and other U.S. water resources in a sustainable way poses great technological, political and social challenges. But, as the Pacific Institute’s Gleick said, “If we continue on our current path, continuing to do things the way we’re doing them, we’re going to be much worse off in five or ten years, or in the coming decades, because the way we manage water now is inappropriate. It’s not sustainable. We over-pump our groundwater. We take water from ecosystems. We don’t think about how we grow and where we grow our population.”
Water and electricity, and natural gas: when you buy a house you expect that those services will be there and the thought of having a house without any one of those seems absurd.Freshwater scarcity is proving to be the new risk to local economies and regional development plans across the country. Just like the rising price of gasoline, the expanding number of home foreclosures, stagnant incomes, and several other stubborn 21st-century trends, water is imposing limits on how America grows.
“So the business-as-usual future is a bad one,” Gleick continued. “We know that in five years we’ll be in trouble, but it doesn’t have to be that way. If there were more education and awareness about water issues, if we started to really think about the natural limits about where humans and ecosystems have to work together to deal with water, and if we were to start to think about efficient use of water, then we could reduce the severity of the problems enormously. I’m just not sure we’re going to.”
Water woes
Essentially, civil engineers can employ this technology to decouple water supplies from sanitation systems, a move that could save significant amounts of freshwater if it were more widely employed. Moreover, recycled waste could cut the use of fertilizer derived from fossil fuels.
Beyond constraining demand for freshwater, the opposite approach, increasing its supply, will be a critical component of the solution to water shortages. Some 3 percent of all the water on the earth is fresh; all the rest is salty. But desalination tools are poised to exploit that huge source of salty water. A recent, substantial reduction in the costs for the most energy-efficient desalination technology—membrane reverse-osmosis systems—means that many coastal cities can now secure new sources of potable water.
During reverse osmosis, salty water flows into the first of two chambers that are separated by a semipermeable (water-passing) membrane. The second chamber contains freshwater. Then a substantial amount of pressure is applied to the chamber with the salt solution in it. Over time the pressure forces the water molecules through the membrane to the freshwater side.
Engineers have achieved cost savings by implementing a variety of upgrades, including better membranes that require less pressure, and therefore energy, to filter water and system modularization, which makes construction easier. Large-scale desalination plants using the new, more economical technology have been built in Singapore and Tampa Bay, Fla.
Scientists are now working on reverse-osmosis filters composed of carbon nanotubes that offer better separation efficiencies and the potential of lowering desalination costs by an additional 30 percent. This technology, which has been demonstrated in prototypes, is steadily approaching commercial use. Despite the improvements in energy efficiency, however, the applicability of reverse osmosis is to some degree limited by the fact that the technology is still energy-intensive, so the availability of affordable power is important to significantly expanding its application.
A Return on Investment
Not surprisingly, staving off future water shortages means spending money—a lot of it. Analysts at Booz Allen Hamilton have estimated that to provide water needed for all uses through 2030, the world will need to invest as much as $1 trillion a year on applying existing technologies for conserving water, maintaining and replacing infrastructure, and constructing sanitation systems. This is a daunting figure to be sure, but perhaps not so huge when put in perspective. The required sum turns out to be about 1.5 percent of today’s annual global gross domestic product, or about $120 per capita, a seemingly achievable expenditure.
Unfortunately, investment in water facilities as a percentage of gross domestic product has dropped by half in most countries since the late 1990s. If a crisis arises in the coming decades, it will not be for lack of know-how; it will come from a lack of foresight and from an unwillingness to spend the needed money.
There is, however, at least one cause for optimism: the most populous countries with the largest water infrastructure needs—India and China—are precisely those that are experiencing rapid economic growth. The part of the globe that is most likely to continue suffering from inadequate water access—Africa and its one billion inhabitants—spends the least on water infrastructure and cannot afford to spend much; it is crucial, therefore, that wealthier nations provide more funds to assist the effort.
The international community can reduce the chances of a global water crisis if it puts its collective mind to the challenge. We do not have to invent new technologies; we must simply accelerate the adoption of existing techniques to conserve and enhance the water supply. Solving the water problem will not be easy, but we can succeed if we start right away and stick to it. Otherwise, much of the world will go thirsty.
Beyond constraining demand for freshwater, the opposite approach, increasing its supply, will be a critical component of the solution to water shortages. Some 3 percent of all the water on the earth is fresh; all the rest is salty. But desalination tools are poised to exploit that huge source of salty water. A recent, substantial reduction in the costs for the most energy-efficient desalination technology—membrane reverse-osmosis systems—means that many coastal cities can now secure new sources of potable water.
During reverse osmosis, salty water flows into the first of two chambers that are separated by a semipermeable (water-passing) membrane. The second chamber contains freshwater. Then a substantial amount of pressure is applied to the chamber with the salt solution in it. Over time the pressure forces the water molecules through the membrane to the freshwater side.
Engineers have achieved cost savings by implementing a variety of upgrades, including better membranes that require less pressure, and therefore energy, to filter water and system modularization, which makes construction easier. Large-scale desalination plants using the new, more economical technology have been built in Singapore and Tampa Bay, Fla.
Scientists are now working on reverse-osmosis filters composed of carbon nanotubes that offer better separation efficiencies and the potential of lowering desalination costs by an additional 30 percent. This technology, which has been demonstrated in prototypes, is steadily approaching commercial use. Despite the improvements in energy efficiency, however, the applicability of reverse osmosis is to some degree limited by the fact that the technology is still energy-intensive, so the availability of affordable power is important to significantly expanding its application.
A Return on Investment
Not surprisingly, staving off future water shortages means spending money—a lot of it. Analysts at Booz Allen Hamilton have estimated that to provide water needed for all uses through 2030, the world will need to invest as much as $1 trillion a year on applying existing technologies for conserving water, maintaining and replacing infrastructure, and constructing sanitation systems. This is a daunting figure to be sure, but perhaps not so huge when put in perspective. The required sum turns out to be about 1.5 percent of today’s annual global gross domestic product, or about $120 per capita, a seemingly achievable expenditure.
Unfortunately, investment in water facilities as a percentage of gross domestic product has dropped by half in most countries since the late 1990s. If a crisis arises in the coming decades, it will not be for lack of know-how; it will come from a lack of foresight and from an unwillingness to spend the needed money.
There is, however, at least one cause for optimism: the most populous countries with the largest water infrastructure needs—India and China—are precisely those that are experiencing rapid economic growth. The part of the globe that is most likely to continue suffering from inadequate water access—Africa and its one billion inhabitants—spends the least on water infrastructure and cannot afford to spend much; it is crucial, therefore, that wealthier nations provide more funds to assist the effort.
The international community can reduce the chances of a global water crisis if it puts its collective mind to the challenge. We do not have to invent new technologies; we must simply accelerate the adoption of existing techniques to conserve and enhance the water supply. Solving the water problem will not be easy, but we can succeed if we start right away and stick to it. Otherwise, much of the world will go thirsty.
limiting water waste
In addition to income levels, water prices help to set the extent of demand. For example, in the late 1990s, when my colleagues and I simulated global water use from 2000 until 2050, we found that worldwide water requirements would rise from 3,350 cubic kilometers (km3)—roughly equal to the volume of Lake Huron—to 4,900 km3 if income and prices remained as they were in 1998. (A cubic kilometer of water is equivalent to the volume of 400,000 Olympic swimming pools.) But the demand would grow almost threefold (to 9,250 km3) if the incomes of the poorest nations were to continue to climb to levels equivalent to those of middle-income countries today and if the governments of those nations were to pursue no special policies to restrict water use. This increased requirement would greatly intensify the pressure on water supplies, a result that agrees fairly well with forecasts made by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) when it considered a “business-as-usual,” or “do-nothing-different,” scenario in the 2007 study Water for Food, Water for Life.
Ways to Limit Waste
Given the importance of economics and income in water matters, it is clear that reasonable pricing policies that promote greater conservation by domestic and industrial users are worth adopting. In the past the cost of freshwater in the U.S. and other economic powers has been too low to encourage users to save water: as often happens when people exploit a natural resource, few worry about waste if a commodity is so cheap that it seems almost free.
Setting higher prices for water where possible is therefore near the top of my prescription list. It makes a lot of sense in developed nations, particularly in large cities and industrial areas, and more and more in developing ones as well. Higher water prices can, for instance, spur the adoption of measures such as the systematic reuse of used water (so-called gray water) for nonpotable applications. It can also encourage water agencies to build recycling and reclamation systems.
Raising prices can in addition convince municipalities and others to reduce water losses by improving maintenance of water-delivery systems. One of the major consequences of pricing water too low is that insufficient funds are generated for future development and preventive upkeep. In 2002 the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that many domestic water utilities defer infrastructure maintenance so that they can remain within their limited operating budgets. Rather than avoiding major failures by detecting leaks early on, they usually wait until water mains break before fixing them.
The cost of repairing and modernizing the water infrastructures of the U.S. and Canada to reduce losses and ensure continued operation will be high, however. The consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton has projected that the two countries will need to spend $3.6 trillion combined on their water systems over the next 25 years.
When the goal is to save water, another key strategy should be to focus on the largest consumers. That approach places irrigated agriculture in the bull’s-eye: compared with any other single activity, conserving irrigation flows would conserve dramatically more freshwater. To meet world food requirements in 2050 without any technological improvements to irrigated agriculture methods, farmers will need a substantial rise in irrigation water supplies (an increase from the current 2,700 to 4,000 km3), according to the IWMI study.
On the other hand, even a modest 10 percent rise in irrigation efficiency would free up more water than is evaporated off by all other users. This goal could be achieved by stopping up leaks in the water-delivery infrastructure and by implementing low-loss storage of water as well as more efficient application of water to farm crops.
An agreement between municipal water suppliers in southern California and nearby irrigators in the Imperial Irrigation District illustrates one creative conservation effort. The municipal group is paying to line leaky irrigation canals with waterproof materials, and the water that is saved will go to municipal needs.
Ways to Limit Waste
Given the importance of economics and income in water matters, it is clear that reasonable pricing policies that promote greater conservation by domestic and industrial users are worth adopting. In the past the cost of freshwater in the U.S. and other economic powers has been too low to encourage users to save water: as often happens when people exploit a natural resource, few worry about waste if a commodity is so cheap that it seems almost free.
Setting higher prices for water where possible is therefore near the top of my prescription list. It makes a lot of sense in developed nations, particularly in large cities and industrial areas, and more and more in developing ones as well. Higher water prices can, for instance, spur the adoption of measures such as the systematic reuse of used water (so-called gray water) for nonpotable applications. It can also encourage water agencies to build recycling and reclamation systems.
Raising prices can in addition convince municipalities and others to reduce water losses by improving maintenance of water-delivery systems. One of the major consequences of pricing water too low is that insufficient funds are generated for future development and preventive upkeep. In 2002 the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that many domestic water utilities defer infrastructure maintenance so that they can remain within their limited operating budgets. Rather than avoiding major failures by detecting leaks early on, they usually wait until water mains break before fixing them.
The cost of repairing and modernizing the water infrastructures of the U.S. and Canada to reduce losses and ensure continued operation will be high, however. The consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton has projected that the two countries will need to spend $3.6 trillion combined on their water systems over the next 25 years.
When the goal is to save water, another key strategy should be to focus on the largest consumers. That approach places irrigated agriculture in the bull’s-eye: compared with any other single activity, conserving irrigation flows would conserve dramatically more freshwater. To meet world food requirements in 2050 without any technological improvements to irrigated agriculture methods, farmers will need a substantial rise in irrigation water supplies (an increase from the current 2,700 to 4,000 km3), according to the IWMI study.
On the other hand, even a modest 10 percent rise in irrigation efficiency would free up more water than is evaporated off by all other users. This goal could be achieved by stopping up leaks in the water-delivery infrastructure and by implementing low-loss storage of water as well as more efficient application of water to farm crops.
An agreement between municipal water suppliers in southern California and nearby irrigators in the Imperial Irrigation District illustrates one creative conservation effort. The municipal group is paying to line leaky irrigation canals with waterproof materials, and the water that is saved will go to municipal needs.
Source- Scientific American, Water Shortages
Shortages of freshwater are meanwhile growing more common in developed countries as well. Severe droughts in the U.S., for instance, have recently left many cities and towns in the northern part of Georgia and large swaths of the Southwest scrambling for water. Emblematic of the problem are the man-made lakes Mead and Powell, both of which are fed by the overstressed Colorado River. Every year the lakes record their ongoing decline with successive, chalky high-water marks left on their tall canyon walls like so many bathtub rings.
Golden Rule
Location, of course, does not wholly determine the availability of water in a given place: the ability to pay plays a major role. People in the American West have an old saying: “Water usually runs downhill, but it always runs uphill to money.” In other words, when supplies are deficient, the powers that be typically divert them to higher-revenue-generating activities at the expense of lower-revenue-generating ones. So those with the money get water, while others do not.
Such arrangements often leave poor people and nonhuman consumers of water—the flora and fauna of the adjacent ecosystems—with insufficient allocations. And even the best intentions can be distorted by the economic realities described by that Western aphorism.
A case in point occurred in one of the best-managed watersheds (or catchments) in the world, the Murray-Darling River Basin in southeast Australia. Decades ago the agriculturalists and the government there divided up the waters among the human users—grape growers, wheat farmers and sheep ranchers—in a sophisticated way based on equity and economics. The regional water-planning agreement allowed the participants to trade water and market water rights. It even reserved a significant part of the aqueous resource for the associated ecosystems and their natural inhabitants, key “users” that are often ignored even though their health in large measure underlies the well-being of their entire region. Water and marsh plants, both macro and micro, for example, often do much to remove human-derived waste from the water that passes through the ecosystems in which they live.
It turns out, however, that the quantities of water that the planners had set aside to sustain the local environment were inadequate—an underestimation that became apparent during periodic droughts—in particular, the one that has wrought havoc in the area for the last half a dozen years. The territory surrounding the Murray-Darling Basin area dried out and then burned away in tremendous wildfires in recent years.
The economic actors had all taken their share reasonably enough; they just did not consider the needs of the natural environment, which suffered greatly when its inadequate supply was reduced to critical levels by drought. The members of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission are now frantically trying to extricate themselves from the disastrous results of their misallocation of the total water resource.
Given the difficulties of sensibly apportioning the water supply within a single nation, imagine the complexities of doing so for international river basins such as that of the Jordan River, which borders on Lebanon, Syria, Israel, the Palestinian areas and Jordan, all of which have claims to the shared, but limited, supply in an extremely parched region. The struggle for freshwater has contributed to civil and military disputes in the area. Only continuing negotiations and compromise have kept this tense situation under control.
Determining Demand
Like supply, demand for water varies from place to place. Not only does demand rise with population size and growth rate, it also tends to go up with income level: richer groups generally consume more water, especially in urban and industrial areas. The affluent also insist on services such as wastewater treatment and intensive farm irrigation. In many cities, and in particular in the more densely populated territories of Asia and Africa, water demands are growing rapidly.
Golden Rule
Location, of course, does not wholly determine the availability of water in a given place: the ability to pay plays a major role. People in the American West have an old saying: “Water usually runs downhill, but it always runs uphill to money.” In other words, when supplies are deficient, the powers that be typically divert them to higher-revenue-generating activities at the expense of lower-revenue-generating ones. So those with the money get water, while others do not.
Such arrangements often leave poor people and nonhuman consumers of water—the flora and fauna of the adjacent ecosystems—with insufficient allocations. And even the best intentions can be distorted by the economic realities described by that Western aphorism.
A case in point occurred in one of the best-managed watersheds (or catchments) in the world, the Murray-Darling River Basin in southeast Australia. Decades ago the agriculturalists and the government there divided up the waters among the human users—grape growers, wheat farmers and sheep ranchers—in a sophisticated way based on equity and economics. The regional water-planning agreement allowed the participants to trade water and market water rights. It even reserved a significant part of the aqueous resource for the associated ecosystems and their natural inhabitants, key “users” that are often ignored even though their health in large measure underlies the well-being of their entire region. Water and marsh plants, both macro and micro, for example, often do much to remove human-derived waste from the water that passes through the ecosystems in which they live.
It turns out, however, that the quantities of water that the planners had set aside to sustain the local environment were inadequate—an underestimation that became apparent during periodic droughts—in particular, the one that has wrought havoc in the area for the last half a dozen years. The territory surrounding the Murray-Darling Basin area dried out and then burned away in tremendous wildfires in recent years.
The economic actors had all taken their share reasonably enough; they just did not consider the needs of the natural environment, which suffered greatly when its inadequate supply was reduced to critical levels by drought. The members of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission are now frantically trying to extricate themselves from the disastrous results of their misallocation of the total water resource.
Given the difficulties of sensibly apportioning the water supply within a single nation, imagine the complexities of doing so for international river basins such as that of the Jordan River, which borders on Lebanon, Syria, Israel, the Palestinian areas and Jordan, all of which have claims to the shared, but limited, supply in an extremely parched region. The struggle for freshwater has contributed to civil and military disputes in the area. Only continuing negotiations and compromise have kept this tense situation under control.
Determining Demand
Like supply, demand for water varies from place to place. Not only does demand rise with population size and growth rate, it also tends to go up with income level: richer groups generally consume more water, especially in urban and industrial areas. The affluent also insist on services such as wastewater treatment and intensive farm irrigation. In many cities, and in particular in the more densely populated territories of Asia and Africa, water demands are growing rapidly.
wtaer recycling is practical?
Yes, water is wasted in the average home by design, but designing a home to minimize water usage will not be easy. First, potable water will need to be piped through a water heater and then on to all the sinks and bathtubs/showers and kitchen appliances, most notably the dish washer. The drains from all these sinks and tubs and the dishwasher must then be routed to a central filtration/pretreatment tank before this gray water can be pumped through a second set of pipes to the toilets. The gray water must be filtered and pretreated before reuse, as it contains particulate matter and soap residues that will readily clog the water pipes, especially in areas with hard water. Finally, the toilets must be drained through a second set of drains to another collection point, where solids are separated for composting and any remaining wastewater must be either disposed of or collected for agricultural use, along with the solids.
As a contractor specializing in home construction for the last 24 years, I can easily state that the costs involved will be substantial. In new single family dwelling construction, plumbing costs will easily be three times the current cost, and that does not even include the costs of the various collection and treatment systems. Further, energy usage related to plumbing will probably double as well, since the gray water will not pump itself back through the house. Costs to retrofit these systems to existing homes will be far higher, and costs to retrofit multi-story and multi-family units, such as apartment buildings, will probably be prohibitive. In other words, these advanced ideas will only be usable on new construction homes.
These concepts are not new. Robert A. Heinlein discussed them in detail in his 1966 classic The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. In this novel, lunar colonists revolt against their Earth based overlords, a revolution which, at the heart, is based on the misuse and wastage of water. However, the requirements of a capital intensive, energy intensive, resource constrained non-Terrestrial environment do not translate back to present day Earth except in the most extreme circumstances. It would be far better to invest a small amount in more efficient farming practices than plan on rebuilding the planets housing infrastructure.
Scientific American, August, 2008
As a contractor specializing in home construction for the last 24 years, I can easily state that the costs involved will be substantial. In new single family dwelling construction, plumbing costs will easily be three times the current cost, and that does not even include the costs of the various collection and treatment systems. Further, energy usage related to plumbing will probably double as well, since the gray water will not pump itself back through the house. Costs to retrofit these systems to existing homes will be far higher, and costs to retrofit multi-story and multi-family units, such as apartment buildings, will probably be prohibitive. In other words, these advanced ideas will only be usable on new construction homes.
These concepts are not new. Robert A. Heinlein discussed them in detail in his 1966 classic The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. In this novel, lunar colonists revolt against their Earth based overlords, a revolution which, at the heart, is based on the misuse and wastage of water. However, the requirements of a capital intensive, energy intensive, resource constrained non-Terrestrial environment do not translate back to present day Earth except in the most extreme circumstances. It would be far better to invest a small amount in more efficient farming practices than plan on rebuilding the planets housing infrastructure.
Scientific American, August, 2008
hard to defend Washington
"Look, money is inefficient when it hits Washington. It-s more efficient when Joe the plumber uses it as he needs for his economic necessities. the government just screws up everything." Good point. Its hard to argue that most things Washington plans, with good intentions, wind up as they are intended. Look at Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, and Medicare- all riddled with fraud and greed and all cases for more serious oversight. The greedy crooks have taken over the market and subverted it for their own benefit, leaving Joe Sixpack to foot the bills when they are done pillaging. I wouldnt mind paying a little more in taxes if I thought it would go for a good cause ie childrens healthcare, education, Job Core, cancer research, etc. Maybe, with close supervision, these programs will be able to do what they set out to do, and eliminate the graft and corruption. Its worth a shot because we KNOW where letting the greedy and corrupt crooks have their way will end up. Just like the Internet scams, we need to put several of those crooked CEOs and bankers in jail for a long time, Democrats and Republicans, no matter WHERE they are found and WHO they are.
commentary
"Start giving this spread it around and for the benefit of everyone, irregardless, and we all lose." Explain this so it makes sense and doesnt sound completely self-serving. For those who havent noticed, we have a progressive tax code where those who can afford to pay more, do, at least in theory. Nobody is, of course, talking about turning ones entire paycheck over, just a small slice, maybe 1%. To say that anyone needs to accumulate all the wealth they can at the expense of others IN CASE they may need it at some point in the future they decide they want a new boat, etc. sounds like GREED IS GOOD and I GOT MINE all over again. Ayers has been repudiated by Obama, as he should be. What more do you want? self-immolation? Obama has drawn the line of well-to-do at 250k- are you saying those people are NOT well-to-do ? Are the rich saying their ONLY concern is their employees? Please. What about the child labor Nike uses to make their expensive shoes at $3 a day, while Nike makes millions? The rich are in business to make themselves rich and frequently couldnt care less about the employees, except as they relate to making them richer. The fact that they have employees is often seen as a necessary nuisance, especially to the self-centered and egotistical owners.
Joe is lazy?
I agree that people should work for their money. Do something. Anything. Does the rich include Joe Lunchbucket in as one of those lazy do-nothings? He lost his house maybe, and his job due to the greed and corruption on Wall Street and Every Street- he is ready, willing, and able to work but there is no work available, due to no fault of his own. The deregulators allowed Wall Street and the banking industry to run wild without any oversight or responsibility until they ran it into the ground. Now they want Joe and his fellow taxpayers to bail their sorry butts out ! Hypocrites who want NO government interference UNTIL they have robbed and plundered everything they can, getting wealthy in the process, with NO concern for the possible effects on anybody else. THEN they want us to bail them out. Those crooks and greedy SOBs need jail time, at least.
rich dont see Joe
McCain says he isnt worried about what some old guy did forty years ago- why wont his people let it go? the rich are concerned about niceties- a new boat or car, a new pool or addition to their house. Joe Lunchbucket is worried about the NECESSITIES of life- food on the table, having a job, keeping the lights on, avoiding foreclosure on his house, etc. The rich dont seem to see the difference. One example of this might be the new gym- a nicety but certainly NOT a necessity, and an unnecessary additional economic burden on Joe in these times of economic hardship. The rich just dont seem to GET IT- they have theirs and can afford the niceties, why cant the middle-class guy do the same? Joe is too concerned about providing food on the table and the other necessities of life to worry about the niceties.
redemption
I believe that kids should be taught that, if they make a mistake early in their lives, they CAN redeem themselves. Forgiveness IS possible. Of course they will have to gradually earn their way back into society's good graces by doing positive things. Once your debt to society is paid (jail or whatever), you get a clean slate to start over. Ayers screwed up royally, no doubt, but does that mean he CANT EVER redeem himself? He is forever banished to purgatory? Let those without sin cast the first stone.
comments
To give refund checks to ANYBODY who hasnt paid any taxes is crazy. Only those who put in should receive. No free rides. Do something, anything. Clean a park, watch a neighbors kids. SOMETHING. Workfare. At the same time, the rich are worried about buying a new boat, or adding to their house when Joe Lunchbucket is worried about losing his job, his house, and his ability to feed his family. To those whom much is given, much is expected. When you have been blessed with wealth it is not unreasonable to share a little of those blessings, no? Aspire to be the best you can be, and work hard and honest, yet dont refuse to share a little of your bounty with the less fortunate, no? I got MINE - screw the rest of you is a fascist, self-centered, and self-indulgent approach to life, and living, no?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
nightmares of the rich
The average worker in the USA makes 38k a year. On that he too has to make car and mortgage payments, fill his car with gas and pay to keep his kids in school and gas in the tank. Are you seriously saying that those making 250k and up NEED that money to survive? Okay, so maybe they dont get a new Jaguar every year like they are used to. How does that compare with Joe Lunchbucket who is struggling to survive- feed and clothe his family, pay his mortgage and avoid foreclosure, keep the lights on, and have enough gas to get to work ? I know, I know-I got MINE, screw you Joe. The average CEO in America makes in ONE DAY what it takes the average worker to earn in one YEAR. Something is wrong there. No new Jaguar this year? HORRORS.
glass houses
Its true that Ayers did some "despicable things" 40 years ago, when Obama was EIGHT years old. That has been acknowledged by Obama and the acts repudiated- the quotes are Obamas. Ayers is now a respected professor at the University of Chicago now, one of the nations finest academic institutions. Is there anybody who doesnt regret some of the things they did when they were much younger? If second chances and learning from ones mistakes are not allowed, perhaps Obama should look into the Keating 5 scandal, in which McCain played a major role.
import numbers
McCAIN: "We have to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much."
THE FACTS: This is a reference to U.S. spending on oil imports. McCain has repeatedly made this claim. But the figure is highly inflated and misleading. According to government agencies that track energy imports, the United States spent $246 billion in 2007 for all imported crude oil, a majority of it coming from friendly nations including neighboring Canada and Mexico. An additional $82 billion was spent on imported refined petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel and fuel oil. A majority of the refined products come from refineries in such friendly countries as the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Trinidad-Tobago and the Virgin Islands.
— The Associated Press
These corrections to the issues quoted in this last debate are presented in the interests of accuracy to both sides, as a basis for discussion and debate.
THE FACTS: This is a reference to U.S. spending on oil imports. McCain has repeatedly made this claim. But the figure is highly inflated and misleading. According to government agencies that track energy imports, the United States spent $246 billion in 2007 for all imported crude oil, a majority of it coming from friendly nations including neighboring Canada and Mexico. An additional $82 billion was spent on imported refined petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel and fuel oil. A majority of the refined products come from refineries in such friendly countries as the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Trinidad-Tobago and the Virgin Islands.
— The Associated Press
These corrections to the issues quoted in this last debate are presented in the interests of accuracy to both sides, as a basis for discussion and debate.
debate errors
McCAIN: "We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 nuclear power plants right away."
THE FACTS: For nuclear power to lower oil dependency would require a massive shift to electric or hybrid-electric cars, with nuclear power providing the electricity. No new U.S. nuclear reactor has been built since the 1970s. Although 15 utilities have filed applications to build 24 new reactors, none is expected to be built before 2015 at the earliest. Turmoil in the credit markets could force cancellation of some of the projects now planned, much less spur construction of 45 new reactors, as reactor costs have soared to about $9 billion apiece.
— The Associated Press
___
OBAMA: "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent."
THE FACTS: Obama constantly says this. But the independent Tax Policy Center says his plan would cut taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009.
— The Associated Press
THE FACTS: For nuclear power to lower oil dependency would require a massive shift to electric or hybrid-electric cars, with nuclear power providing the electricity. No new U.S. nuclear reactor has been built since the 1970s. Although 15 utilities have filed applications to build 24 new reactors, none is expected to be built before 2015 at the earliest. Turmoil in the credit markets could force cancellation of some of the projects now planned, much less spur construction of 45 new reactors, as reactor costs have soared to about $9 billion apiece.
— The Associated Press
___
OBAMA: "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent."
THE FACTS: Obama constantly says this. But the independent Tax Policy Center says his plan would cut taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009.
— The Associated Press
commentary
The only ones who will get a tax increase under Obamas plan are those who make 250k a year and more, who can easily afford it. McCains plan is only 2500 each in health benefits. That is two days in ICU. What you would be betting on with Obama is the POTENTIAL for change for the better. With McCain there is NO potential for change, only more of the same. Eight years of Bush is more than enough. Look at the situation we are in under his questionable leadership. Our Council is ALL Republican and look at the mess THEY have gotten us in! Donald Trump bathrooms, CC cost overruns and change orders, losing 300k a year at the pool, no pool contracts and pool revenues unreported, free use of our pool and other recreational facilities for nonresidents, a sweetheart contract given to Santana and we are paying his electric bills, going 2.5 million more in debt on a new gym we dont need and cant afford during a recession- how many more ways can they foul this City up? All of this is happening on the watch of this City Manager. Inept and incompetent are the two nicest terms to describe these disasters; otherwise you would HAVE TO consider corruption to explain multiple, repeated, incredibly expensive City projects. We shouldnt accept incompetency or ineptitude any more than we should accept public corruption.
clarification
The Do What You Need To Do reply was in response to the poster who said we shouldnt take OUR money out of OUR IRAs, savings,etc if necessary! It IS our money and we should be able to do with what we need to do! Its all perfectly legal. If we were a contractor we could just get a city contract to pay us 300%, 400% or more in profits so we wont need the money to survive. A lot of middle class people lately are struggling, in case you havent noticed. I know, I know, You've got YOURS, screw the rest of us.
point counterpoint
John McCain is a decent, honorable man who has served in the Senate for many years. He has served his buddy, Bush, even better, voting with him 90% of the time. if you actually use your supposed health benefits, as proposed by McCain, you will be taxed on those benefits as income, thereby raising your taxes. This has NEVER been done before in our history as a country. Obama is to be put down because he has never had a gun put to his head? How many guns do you think were pulled on Bush, or his daddy, or Reagan, or ANY other politician before THEY were elected? If McCain has had a late night call, what was it for? Pizza? Since when is politics NOT a measure of the publics acceptance of ones ideas and vision for the future of America? Unpopular people with unpopular and unworkable ideas dont get elected much, do they? McCain can be trusted to maintain the status quo- look at the mess we are in! For real change focused on the average blue-collar Joe Lunchbucket family, Obama has to be seriously considered.
FOI
Several requests have been made in Open Forum and over a month later, when a response was requested, the requester was told that an Open forum request was technically NOT a Freedom of Information request and had to be resubmitted. It was resubmitted and no reply was ever forthcoming. Freedom of Information requests are best made online and saved seperately on your computer for later reference. The City hopes that over time you will have moved on to other topics or have forgotten the original request. Thats why saving it on your computer before sending it works best. The City is considerably behind already.
outside audit needed
The outrageous bathroom numbers stand alone, and have NOT been disputed so far. The same goes for the pool numbers, the CC numbers, the bathroom elevation numbers, the omission of water, sewer and electric hookups to the bathrooms, the ramps to the bathrooms, the lack of pool contracts to confirm and substantiate pool revenues, the wildly erroneous Finance Dept numbers on the website, etc etc.- all of these fiascos have a documented factual basis that invites scrutiny and possible rebuttal with different claims that are backed with different, yet hopefully accurate, numbers. Until they are challenged, they will have to be assumed to be accurate. ALL have happened on this City Managers watch. The facts and figures of these multiple ongoing City fiascos have not been denied. The numbers speak for themselves. An independent outside audit would clear up this situation and any questions decisively- why do we NOT have one? What are they hiding? The taxpaying residents have a right to know how the City is managing their tax monies. If nothing is being hidden, the audit will show that is the case. If there ARE monies unaccounted for, or expenditures not in line with generally accepted accounting principles the residents should know THAT too! Mr. Dotson is an accountant, let him review the books! Or, if he doesn't have the time, let him suggest somebody to do this task.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
the truth shall set you free
All those who are tired of any postings have to do is disprove them. Is there anybody who denies the numbers presented are accurate? This sounds like one of those people who say, "Dont confuse the issues with facts". Those who object to the facts being presented are probably those who are involved in the horrible mismanagement of our city OR the special interests who are directly benefitting from the mismanagement and/or corruption. The facts shall set you free, and should continue until shown to be erroneous OR those wasting our tax dollars use some sense of fiscal responsibility and stop wasting the taxpayers money by the truckloads. Remember in April.
I got mine
If you need money to pay your house and car bills, put food on the table and keep the lights on you do what you have to do. The "I got mine-screw you" mindset smacks of fascist leanings. If history is any teacher, what should we learn from the past 7 1/2 years with Dubya? Greed and corruption from an unregulated and unsupervised market has led to a global financial crisis, no? Who has been in charge during this time? The buck stops at the top, unless its City government. Then it never stops, among freebies to special interests, backroom deals, incredible cost overruns from constant change orders, bathrooms that cost FOUR TIMES what they should, arrogant, secretive, and unresponsive city officials, an ill-advised and poorly timed new gym project we cant afford, there is plenty of blame to go around but it SHOULD stop at the top. Those are the ones that claim credit when something occasionally goes right- where are they when things DONT go well, which is MUCH more common?
campaign pros and cons
Apparently Palin DID fight corruption among the oil companies in Alaska and that is to her credit. That she also apparently had a trooper fired for divorcing her sister is NOT to her credit, and smacks of petty politics. She does appear to know something about energy from her experience in Alaska, but cannot see Russia from her house, as she claimed, and has NO foreign affairs experience, so she is limited to that one issue. I salute her as a woman seeking high office but thats not enough to lead our country. Getting elected to the US Senate is an accomplishment, no? He has managed to raise over 100 million dollars for his campaign and that is no small accomplishment. Obama has authored or partnered on several bills in his time in the Senate. We cant afford another term of the same policies as Bush. Bush's approval rating is around 26 % as of this time. the Republicans claim that the Democrats have caused all this in the last six months, even while deriding the Democrats for "doing nothing". How can THAT be? Either they did nothing or they caused a lot of problems, no? Thay CANT have done both. Are the Republicans suggesting that the Democrats are responsible for the subprime mess? Who is the deregulation at all costs party? Who says,"Let the market decide", and after they have run us into the ground with their unsupervised greed and corruption, wants the TAXPAYERS (government) to bail their sorry butts out?
Monday, October 13, 2008
memory gaps
Apparently Alzheimer has been diagnosed on all of our Council members. At the Borgemann's Fall Love-in it was all hearts and flowers. ALL of the Council members showered him with praise for the job he has been doing. Somehow, they have conveniently FORGOT the multiple expensive (to the residents) financial fiascos that have occurred, and continue occurring, on his watch. We must have the ONLY 500k+ bathrooms in the state, maybe in several states. TWO YEARS to get 2 bathrooms built is a sign of great management? $450+ a square foot is great management? Over $500 a square foot for the CC addition AND two years for that 520 square foot project is a sign of good management? FORGETTING to include water, sewer, and electric hookups to the bathrooms is NOT a sure sign of Alzheimers? Losing 300k a year on the pool so that 6 Springs kids can use it year-round is a sign of even slightly competent management? Three years after the revenues were posted online there were more than a DOZEN glaring errors in the numbers, some were HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars off. Every project he touches costs us, the taxpayers, 300%, 400 % and more than it would cost anybody else! Why is that? and WHERE is that money going? NOBODY asks Gym the hard questions, nobody! He has voluntarily forgone a raise this year, as he should, considering he has NO Water and Sewer administering to do! He should take a 20% pay cut for that alone! Alzheimers isnt a pretty thing to see, and neither is gross incompetence, poor judgement, and/or corruption.
campaign pros and cons
There will always be One Issue people- those who will not vote for blacks, and those who will not vote for a woman. Their minds are closed and not receptive to different ideas. It is usually older folks who have a history of doing things a certain way that has worked in their past, and so they resist change out of fear what the new way of doing things will bring. Possibly influential friends, voting records, and experience are all concerns but perhaps the most important factor is the ISSUES; the values of the candidates and their visions of the future. It appears that the younger people are tending to go for Obama and the older generation for MmcCain, in general. Obamas connections with questionable characters bothers me, just as McCains associations with Big Oil concerns me. I like Obamas plan to renew our aging infrastructure, creating ten million good AMERICAN jobs that CANT be outsourced. I also like his plan to focus on alternative energy as I dont believe we can drill our way out of this energy crisis, and alternative energy research could generate millions more American jobs. It is good for Bin Laden to KNOW that, if we get a chance to take him out, we WILL. It may not be the best diplomacy but that no-nonsense, practical approach to fighting terrorism appeals to me. He has declared war on us and we need to eliminate him before he kills other innocent Americans. I am not sure how somebody who has voted with Bush 90% of the time can be called a maverick either. I do prefer McCains attitude toward Iraq because we cant leave until the Iraquis can defend themselves. If we leave too soon, we will have to go back again. Do it right the first time.
Green roofs
Dear EarthTalk: I was intrigued to hear that there were a number of ways one could modify or construct a roof on a house or office facility that would provide great environmental benefit. Can you enlighten?
-- Bill Teague, Menlo Park, Calif.
Most buildings are designed to shed rain, and as such are built with hard, impenetrable roofing surfaces. As a result, rainwater bounces off and collects as runoff, picking up impurities—including infectious bacteria from animal waste as well as harmful pesticides and fertilizers—on the way to municipal storm sewers, which in turn eventually empty out into local bodies of water.
Minimizing this run-off means that more impurities will remain in local soils where they can be broken down more easily into their constituent elements than if they are concentrated downstream. In order to achieve this goal, landscape architects have developed so-called “green roofs,” which utilize living plant matter and soil on top of a building in order to absorb, collect and reuse rainwater while preventing run-off. Many buildings employing green roofs are able to find abundant uses for the water they collect, from watering exterior plantings at ground level to flushing toilets inside.
According to Steven Peck of the Toronto-based non-profit Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, green roofs can play an important role in maintaining ecological integrity within otherwise paved over areas. “The roofscapes of our cities are the last urban frontier—from 15 percent to 35 percent of the total land area—and the green roof industry can turn these wasted spaces into a force for cleaner air, cleaner water, energy savings, cooling, beauty and recreation,” he says.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encourages the creation of green roofs for mitigating the urban “heat island effect,” whereby temperatures in crowded cities can soar some 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in less developed areas nearby. Other benefits, says the EPA, include: providing amenity space for tenants (in effect replacing a yard or patio); reducing building heating and cooling costs due to the buffering effect of the plant matter and soil; filtering pollutants like carbon dioxide out of the air and heavy metals out of rainwater; and increasing bird habitat in otherwise built-up areas.
Beyond going all out to build a “living” green roof, certain inorganic materials can also make an existing roof greener. The non-profit Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC), for instance, suggests roofing surfaces that reflect the sun’s heat so as to reduce the urban heat island effect while improving residential energy efficiency. According to the group, “a cool roof reflects and emits the sun’s heat back to the sky.” Builders can check out CRRC’s website for a database of information on the radiative properties of various roofing surfaces so as to make the smartest choice for clients and the environment.
Another quality that makes certain roofs greener than others is how long they last. Metal roofs are known to be relatively maintenance free and last longer than shingles in most situations. Slate roofs also have an excellent reputation for lasting long, although getting work done on them can be expensive when they do need repairs. The Slate Roofing Contractors Association reports that sea green slates can last anywhere from one to two centuries, depending on where the slate is quarried and how well it’s eventually installed.
CONTACTS: Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, www.greenroofs.org; CRRC, www.coolroofs.org.
-- Bill Teague, Menlo Park, Calif.
Most buildings are designed to shed rain, and as such are built with hard, impenetrable roofing surfaces. As a result, rainwater bounces off and collects as runoff, picking up impurities—including infectious bacteria from animal waste as well as harmful pesticides and fertilizers—on the way to municipal storm sewers, which in turn eventually empty out into local bodies of water.
Minimizing this run-off means that more impurities will remain in local soils where they can be broken down more easily into their constituent elements than if they are concentrated downstream. In order to achieve this goal, landscape architects have developed so-called “green roofs,” which utilize living plant matter and soil on top of a building in order to absorb, collect and reuse rainwater while preventing run-off. Many buildings employing green roofs are able to find abundant uses for the water they collect, from watering exterior plantings at ground level to flushing toilets inside.
According to Steven Peck of the Toronto-based non-profit Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, green roofs can play an important role in maintaining ecological integrity within otherwise paved over areas. “The roofscapes of our cities are the last urban frontier—from 15 percent to 35 percent of the total land area—and the green roof industry can turn these wasted spaces into a force for cleaner air, cleaner water, energy savings, cooling, beauty and recreation,” he says.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encourages the creation of green roofs for mitigating the urban “heat island effect,” whereby temperatures in crowded cities can soar some 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in less developed areas nearby. Other benefits, says the EPA, include: providing amenity space for tenants (in effect replacing a yard or patio); reducing building heating and cooling costs due to the buffering effect of the plant matter and soil; filtering pollutants like carbon dioxide out of the air and heavy metals out of rainwater; and increasing bird habitat in otherwise built-up areas.
Beyond going all out to build a “living” green roof, certain inorganic materials can also make an existing roof greener. The non-profit Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC), for instance, suggests roofing surfaces that reflect the sun’s heat so as to reduce the urban heat island effect while improving residential energy efficiency. According to the group, “a cool roof reflects and emits the sun’s heat back to the sky.” Builders can check out CRRC’s website for a database of information on the radiative properties of various roofing surfaces so as to make the smartest choice for clients and the environment.
Another quality that makes certain roofs greener than others is how long they last. Metal roofs are known to be relatively maintenance free and last longer than shingles in most situations. Slate roofs also have an excellent reputation for lasting long, although getting work done on them can be expensive when they do need repairs. The Slate Roofing Contractors Association reports that sea green slates can last anywhere from one to two centuries, depending on where the slate is quarried and how well it’s eventually installed.
CONTACTS: Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, www.greenroofs.org; CRRC, www.coolroofs.org.
plug-in hybrids
Dear EarthTalk: Should we expect to see “plug-in” hybrid cars anytime soon? I’ve been hearing they are on the horizon but I wonder if that means in one year or 10.
-- Bill A., Stratford, Conn.
Gasoline-electric hybrids now, like Toyota’s popular Prius, don’t need to plug in—you just fill their tanks with gasoline and the battery keeps charged by the internal combustion engine and by energy generated from the wheels when braking (a feature known as “regenerative braking”). The battery then powers the electric motor when it is called into service during idling, backing-up, crawling in gridlock, maintaining speed while cruising, and for extra uphill power when needed. As such, the electric motor is essentially a back-up engine while the hybrid relies mainly on the gasoline engine.
Plug-in hybrids take the concept further by plugging into a regular electric outlet to enable the vehicle to operate solely on its electric motor for ranges of 40-50 miles or more on a single charge. This has profound implications for commuters who need only drive short distances to and from work every day and who may be able to do so solely on electric power. The gasoline engine then becomes the supplemental one for when the car needs to travel farther than the electric engine can take it.
According to researchers at the University of California Davis, the electricity cost for powering a plug-in hybrid is only about one-quarter of the cost of powering a like-sized gasoline vehicle. Other benefits include far fewer fill-ups at gas stations and the convenience of recharging at home.
Toyota, currently the world’s largest producer of hybrid vehicles by far thanks to the success of its Prius, announced that it expects to have a commercially viable plug-in hybrid available to consumers as early as 2010 and is now testing prototype versions of plug-in hybrids at two California universities.
Felix Kramer of the California Cars Initiative (CCI), a non-profit dedicated to promoting plug-ins, called Toyota’s announcement “stunning and very welcome,” and says that these vehicles will be the cleanest practical cars on the road in a world where gas stations dot just about every intersection. The promise of such cars, says CCI on its website, is that drivers will have a “cleaner, cheaper, quieter car for local travel, and the gas tank is always there should you need to drive longer distances.”
U.S. automakers are also jumping onto the plug-in bandwagon. General Motors says that it will have mass-market plug-in hybrids—modifications of its Saturn Vue and Chevrolet Volt—on the road by 2010. Ford has also developed a small fleet of plug-ins, but is not yet ready to offer them to the public. Fisker, a U.S. start-up focusing on the creation of high performance, energy efficient vehicles, plans to sell an $80,000 plug-in hybrid sports car by late 2009. Chrysler’s Sprinter van was the first plug-in from a major U.S. manufacturer, but it is only presently available to a limited number of institutions as a fleet vehicle.
Plug-ins have also caught on elsewhere. Chinese carmaker BYD plans to sell a plug-in hybrid sedan in the U.S. within five years. And Volkswagen hopes to have a plug-in hybrid Golf ready to roll by 2010.
CONTACTS: California Cars Initiative, www.calcars.org; BYD, www.byd.com; General Motors, http://www.gm.com/experience/fuel_economy/.
-- Bill A., Stratford, Conn.
Gasoline-electric hybrids now, like Toyota’s popular Prius, don’t need to plug in—you just fill their tanks with gasoline and the battery keeps charged by the internal combustion engine and by energy generated from the wheels when braking (a feature known as “regenerative braking”). The battery then powers the electric motor when it is called into service during idling, backing-up, crawling in gridlock, maintaining speed while cruising, and for extra uphill power when needed. As such, the electric motor is essentially a back-up engine while the hybrid relies mainly on the gasoline engine.
Plug-in hybrids take the concept further by plugging into a regular electric outlet to enable the vehicle to operate solely on its electric motor for ranges of 40-50 miles or more on a single charge. This has profound implications for commuters who need only drive short distances to and from work every day and who may be able to do so solely on electric power. The gasoline engine then becomes the supplemental one for when the car needs to travel farther than the electric engine can take it.
According to researchers at the University of California Davis, the electricity cost for powering a plug-in hybrid is only about one-quarter of the cost of powering a like-sized gasoline vehicle. Other benefits include far fewer fill-ups at gas stations and the convenience of recharging at home.
Toyota, currently the world’s largest producer of hybrid vehicles by far thanks to the success of its Prius, announced that it expects to have a commercially viable plug-in hybrid available to consumers as early as 2010 and is now testing prototype versions of plug-in hybrids at two California universities.
Felix Kramer of the California Cars Initiative (CCI), a non-profit dedicated to promoting plug-ins, called Toyota’s announcement “stunning and very welcome,” and says that these vehicles will be the cleanest practical cars on the road in a world where gas stations dot just about every intersection. The promise of such cars, says CCI on its website, is that drivers will have a “cleaner, cheaper, quieter car for local travel, and the gas tank is always there should you need to drive longer distances.”
U.S. automakers are also jumping onto the plug-in bandwagon. General Motors says that it will have mass-market plug-in hybrids—modifications of its Saturn Vue and Chevrolet Volt—on the road by 2010. Ford has also developed a small fleet of plug-ins, but is not yet ready to offer them to the public. Fisker, a U.S. start-up focusing on the creation of high performance, energy efficient vehicles, plans to sell an $80,000 plug-in hybrid sports car by late 2009. Chrysler’s Sprinter van was the first plug-in from a major U.S. manufacturer, but it is only presently available to a limited number of institutions as a fleet vehicle.
Plug-ins have also caught on elsewhere. Chinese carmaker BYD plans to sell a plug-in hybrid sedan in the U.S. within five years. And Volkswagen hopes to have a plug-in hybrid Golf ready to roll by 2010.
CONTACTS: California Cars Initiative, www.calcars.org; BYD, www.byd.com; General Motors, http://www.gm.com/experience/fuel_economy/.
environmental candidates
Dear EarthTalk: What are the major environmental issues that our next president, be it Obama or McCain, will have to confront?
-- Melinda Barnes, via e-mail
Global warming is unquestionably the most pressing environmental issue facing whoever ends up in the White House in January 2009. Not only does climate change impact—and in most cases exacerbate—other environmental problems, it has even wider implications for the economy and society at large. Luckily for all of us, both Barack Obama and John McCain are committed to tackling climate change, although their proposed approaches differ in significant ways.
The non-profit League of Conservation Voters (LCV), America’s leading voice for environmental advocacy within electoral politics, would prefer to see Obama elected president given his environmental track record and plans for the future. While both candidates favor instituting a mandatory “cap-and-trade” program (whereby the federal government allows polluters to trade for the right to emit a reduced overall amount of greenhouse gases), Obama is for more strident cuts. He would like to see the U.S. reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by some 80 percent by 2050, while McCain supports only cutting back by 65 percent. Both candidates have authored legislation in the Senate designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, although no such bills have come close to passing.
Even though McCain is by far the most forward-thinking of the original Republican presidential contenders on global warming and the need to take action, LCV still gives him poor marks, only a 24 rating (out of 100) lifetime and zero for 2007. LCV says that McCain missed all 15 critical environmental votes last year and that he “repeatedly clings to outdated policies and flip-flops on core environmental issues.” By comparison, Obama earned a score of 100 in 2007 and has a lifetime LCV rating of 87.
One area where environmentalists take issue with McCain is his support for expanding the role of nuclear power in cutting fossil fuel use. Obama would rather bolster alternative energy sources like wind and solar power that do not have the nasty side effect of radioactive waste in need of storage and disposal. (McCain also supports the development of new renewables, but not to the extent that Obama is willing to commit).
Some of the other hot button environmental issues sure to occupy the next president’s time include: how to best protect the nation’s water resources and wetlands; whether to allow more drilling for oil and natural gas both offshore and within Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; whether to reinstate the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a Clinton-era law (subsequently overturned by the Bush administration) calling for protection of some 58 million acres of public land from logging; how to meet U.S. commitments on existing environmental laws in international trade agreements; and whether to bring back the so-called “polluter pays” part of the government’s “Superfund” toxic waste clean-up program.
While Obama is clearly the greener candidate on most of these issues, the fact that McCain even takes them seriously—and is committed to any greenhouse gas reductions whatsoever—is a plus for environmental advocates exasperated by eight years of green naysaying by the Bush administration.
CONTACTS: Obama ’08, www.barackobama.com; McCain for President, www.johnmccain.com; League of Conservation Voters, www.lcv.org.
-- Melinda Barnes, via e-mail
Global warming is unquestionably the most pressing environmental issue facing whoever ends up in the White House in January 2009. Not only does climate change impact—and in most cases exacerbate—other environmental problems, it has even wider implications for the economy and society at large. Luckily for all of us, both Barack Obama and John McCain are committed to tackling climate change, although their proposed approaches differ in significant ways.
The non-profit League of Conservation Voters (LCV), America’s leading voice for environmental advocacy within electoral politics, would prefer to see Obama elected president given his environmental track record and plans for the future. While both candidates favor instituting a mandatory “cap-and-trade” program (whereby the federal government allows polluters to trade for the right to emit a reduced overall amount of greenhouse gases), Obama is for more strident cuts. He would like to see the U.S. reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by some 80 percent by 2050, while McCain supports only cutting back by 65 percent. Both candidates have authored legislation in the Senate designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, although no such bills have come close to passing.
Even though McCain is by far the most forward-thinking of the original Republican presidential contenders on global warming and the need to take action, LCV still gives him poor marks, only a 24 rating (out of 100) lifetime and zero for 2007. LCV says that McCain missed all 15 critical environmental votes last year and that he “repeatedly clings to outdated policies and flip-flops on core environmental issues.” By comparison, Obama earned a score of 100 in 2007 and has a lifetime LCV rating of 87.
One area where environmentalists take issue with McCain is his support for expanding the role of nuclear power in cutting fossil fuel use. Obama would rather bolster alternative energy sources like wind and solar power that do not have the nasty side effect of radioactive waste in need of storage and disposal. (McCain also supports the development of new renewables, but not to the extent that Obama is willing to commit).
Some of the other hot button environmental issues sure to occupy the next president’s time include: how to best protect the nation’s water resources and wetlands; whether to allow more drilling for oil and natural gas both offshore and within Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; whether to reinstate the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a Clinton-era law (subsequently overturned by the Bush administration) calling for protection of some 58 million acres of public land from logging; how to meet U.S. commitments on existing environmental laws in international trade agreements; and whether to bring back the so-called “polluter pays” part of the government’s “Superfund” toxic waste clean-up program.
While Obama is clearly the greener candidate on most of these issues, the fact that McCain even takes them seriously—and is committed to any greenhouse gas reductions whatsoever—is a plus for environmental advocates exasperated by eight years of green naysaying by the Bush administration.
CONTACTS: Obama ’08, www.barackobama.com; McCain for President, www.johnmccain.com; League of Conservation Voters, www.lcv.org.
oil changes
Dear EarthTalk: How often do I really need to change my car’s oil? Conventional wisdom has always put it at every 3,000 miles to prevent engine wear, but isn’t changing oil that frequently wasteful and unnecessary? Also, what is the "greenest" and longest-lasting oil I should use?
-- Vic Roberts, Lincoln, Mass.
There is much debate in the automotive world over how often drivers of typical passenger cars or light trucks should change their oil. The quick-lube chains usually recommend it be done every three months or 3,000 miles, but many mechanics would tell you that such frequent changes are overkill. Indeed, most car owner’s manuals recommend changing out the oil less frequently, usually after 5,000 or 7,500 miles.
According to the automotive website Edmunds.com, the answer depends more on driving patterns than anything else. Those who rarely drive more than 10 miles at a time (which doesn’t get the oil hot enough to boil off moisture condensation) or who start their car frequently when the oil isn’t hot (when most engine wear occurs) should change their oil more often—at least twice a year, even if that’s every 1,000 miles, according to Edmunds. But commuters who drive more than 20 miles a day on mostly flat freeway can go as far as their owner’s manual recommends, if not longer, between changes. As a car ages, more frequent changes might be in order, but that’s for a qualified mechanic to decide on a case-by-case basis.
“The necessity of 3,000 mile oil changes is a myth that has been handed down for decades,” writes Austin Davis, proprietor of the website TrustMyMechanic.com. He says that the economics of the oil change industry demand pushing customers to get their oil changed more frequently—purportedly as “cheap insurance” against problems cropping up—whether they need it or not. One of the largest oil change chains, Jiffy Lube, for instance, is owned by Pennzoil-Quaker State, and as such has an incentive to sell as much of the company’s traditional petroleum-based oil as possible.
One way to reduce trips to and money spent unnecessarily on quick-lube outlets is to switch to synthetic oils, which last longer and perform better than their traditional petroleum-based counterparts. Davis says that educated drivers should opt for longer lasting, better performing synthetic oils, which are “most likely good for 10,000 to 15,000 miles or six months” whether or not their manufacturers recommend more frequent changes or not. Some synthetic motor oils, like Amsoil, NEO and Red Line, to name a few, are created specifically to last 25,000 miles or one year before needing a change.
While neither conventional nor synthetic motor oils are good for the environment if disposed of improperly or spilled, most environmentalists would opt for the latter since it lasts three or more times longer and thus reduces waste (or energy use if recycled). Researchers have been experimenting with producing greener motor oils—one pilot project out of Purdue University has produced high-quality, carbon-neutral motor oil from canola crops—but consumers should not expect to see such products on store or garage shelves anytime soon, as the costs of production are high and the availability of cropland is limited. But the very existence of such alternatives—no doubt more are in the offing—bodes well for the future as oil becomes more scarce and expensive.
CONTACTS: Edmunds.com, www.edmunds.com; TrustMyMechanic.com, www.trustmymechanic.com.
-- Vic Roberts, Lincoln, Mass.
There is much debate in the automotive world over how often drivers of typical passenger cars or light trucks should change their oil. The quick-lube chains usually recommend it be done every three months or 3,000 miles, but many mechanics would tell you that such frequent changes are overkill. Indeed, most car owner’s manuals recommend changing out the oil less frequently, usually after 5,000 or 7,500 miles.
According to the automotive website Edmunds.com, the answer depends more on driving patterns than anything else. Those who rarely drive more than 10 miles at a time (which doesn’t get the oil hot enough to boil off moisture condensation) or who start their car frequently when the oil isn’t hot (when most engine wear occurs) should change their oil more often—at least twice a year, even if that’s every 1,000 miles, according to Edmunds. But commuters who drive more than 20 miles a day on mostly flat freeway can go as far as their owner’s manual recommends, if not longer, between changes. As a car ages, more frequent changes might be in order, but that’s for a qualified mechanic to decide on a case-by-case basis.
“The necessity of 3,000 mile oil changes is a myth that has been handed down for decades,” writes Austin Davis, proprietor of the website TrustMyMechanic.com. He says that the economics of the oil change industry demand pushing customers to get their oil changed more frequently—purportedly as “cheap insurance” against problems cropping up—whether they need it or not. One of the largest oil change chains, Jiffy Lube, for instance, is owned by Pennzoil-Quaker State, and as such has an incentive to sell as much of the company’s traditional petroleum-based oil as possible.
One way to reduce trips to and money spent unnecessarily on quick-lube outlets is to switch to synthetic oils, which last longer and perform better than their traditional petroleum-based counterparts. Davis says that educated drivers should opt for longer lasting, better performing synthetic oils, which are “most likely good for 10,000 to 15,000 miles or six months” whether or not their manufacturers recommend more frequent changes or not. Some synthetic motor oils, like Amsoil, NEO and Red Line, to name a few, are created specifically to last 25,000 miles or one year before needing a change.
While neither conventional nor synthetic motor oils are good for the environment if disposed of improperly or spilled, most environmentalists would opt for the latter since it lasts three or more times longer and thus reduces waste (or energy use if recycled). Researchers have been experimenting with producing greener motor oils—one pilot project out of Purdue University has produced high-quality, carbon-neutral motor oil from canola crops—but consumers should not expect to see such products on store or garage shelves anytime soon, as the costs of production are high and the availability of cropland is limited. But the very existence of such alternatives—no doubt more are in the offing—bodes well for the future as oil becomes more scarce and expensive.
CONTACTS: Edmunds.com, www.edmunds.com; TrustMyMechanic.com, www.trustmymechanic.com.
CFLs
Dear EarthTalk: Can those energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs that are popular now cause headaches because of the flickering they do? I converted my whole house over last fall and both my kids were complaining of headaches on and off.
-- Sandy, Eugene, Ore.
With a switch to energy efficient compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs already in full swing in the U.S. and elsewhere—Australia has banned incandescents, Britain will soon, and the U.S. begins a phase-out of incandescents in 2012—more and more complaints have arisen about the new bulbs causing headaches.
Many experts say that the issue is being overblown, however, that there is no scientific evidence that the bulbs cause headaches and that a kind of hysteria has grown out of a small number of anecdotal reports.
Industry experts acknowledge that day-to-day exposure to older, magnetically ballasted long tube fluorescent bulbs found mostly in industrial and institutional settings could cause headaches due to their noticeable flicker rate. The human brain can detect the 60 cycles per second such older bulbs need to refresh themselves to keep putting out light.
However, modern, electronically ballasted CFLs refresh themselves at between 10,000 and 40,000 cycles per second, rates too fast for the human eye or brain to detect. “As far as I’m aware there is no association between headaches and the use of compact fluorescent lamps,” says Phil Scarbro of Energy Federation Incorporated (EFI), a leading distributor of energy efficiency-related products—including many CFLs.
But Magda Havas, an Environmental & Resource Studies Ph.D. at Canada’s Trent University, says that some CFLs emit radio frequency radiation that can cause fatigue, dizziness, ringing in the ears, eyestrain, even migraines. You can test to see if CFLs in your home give off such radiation, she says, by putting a portable AM radio near one that’s on and listening for extra static the closer you get. She says that such electromagnetic interference should also be of concern to people using cell phones and wireless computers.
Sometimes headaches are due to eyestrain from inadequate lighting. When replacing an incandescent bulb with a CFL, pay attention to the lumens, which indicate the amount of light a bulb gives out (watts measure the energy use of a bulb, not the light generated). A 40-watt incandescent bulb can be replaced by an 11-14 watt CFL because the lumen output is approximately the same (490); a 100-watt incandescent can be replaced by a 26-29 watt CFL, both providing about 1,750 lumens. If you’re still skeptical, replace a 40-watt incandescent with a 60-watt equivalent 15-19 watt CFL, which will boost lumens to 900.
Another consideration is color temperature (measured in degrees “Kelvin”). CFLs rated at 2,700 Kelvin give off light in the more pleasing red/yellow end of the color spectrum, closer to that of most incandescents. Bulbs rated at 5,000 Kelvin and above (usually older ones) give off a less pleasing white/blue light.
The Environmental Defense website provides a handy chart comparing the watts and lumens of incandescents versus CFLs, along with further discussion about color temperature.
CONTACTS: EFI, www.efi.org; Environmental Defense, www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagid=630.
-- Sandy, Eugene, Ore.
With a switch to energy efficient compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs already in full swing in the U.S. and elsewhere—Australia has banned incandescents, Britain will soon, and the U.S. begins a phase-out of incandescents in 2012—more and more complaints have arisen about the new bulbs causing headaches.
Many experts say that the issue is being overblown, however, that there is no scientific evidence that the bulbs cause headaches and that a kind of hysteria has grown out of a small number of anecdotal reports.
Industry experts acknowledge that day-to-day exposure to older, magnetically ballasted long tube fluorescent bulbs found mostly in industrial and institutional settings could cause headaches due to their noticeable flicker rate. The human brain can detect the 60 cycles per second such older bulbs need to refresh themselves to keep putting out light.
However, modern, electronically ballasted CFLs refresh themselves at between 10,000 and 40,000 cycles per second, rates too fast for the human eye or brain to detect. “As far as I’m aware there is no association between headaches and the use of compact fluorescent lamps,” says Phil Scarbro of Energy Federation Incorporated (EFI), a leading distributor of energy efficiency-related products—including many CFLs.
But Magda Havas, an Environmental & Resource Studies Ph.D. at Canada’s Trent University, says that some CFLs emit radio frequency radiation that can cause fatigue, dizziness, ringing in the ears, eyestrain, even migraines. You can test to see if CFLs in your home give off such radiation, she says, by putting a portable AM radio near one that’s on and listening for extra static the closer you get. She says that such electromagnetic interference should also be of concern to people using cell phones and wireless computers.
Sometimes headaches are due to eyestrain from inadequate lighting. When replacing an incandescent bulb with a CFL, pay attention to the lumens, which indicate the amount of light a bulb gives out (watts measure the energy use of a bulb, not the light generated). A 40-watt incandescent bulb can be replaced by an 11-14 watt CFL because the lumen output is approximately the same (490); a 100-watt incandescent can be replaced by a 26-29 watt CFL, both providing about 1,750 lumens. If you’re still skeptical, replace a 40-watt incandescent with a 60-watt equivalent 15-19 watt CFL, which will boost lumens to 900.
Another consideration is color temperature (measured in degrees “Kelvin”). CFLs rated at 2,700 Kelvin give off light in the more pleasing red/yellow end of the color spectrum, closer to that of most incandescents. Bulbs rated at 5,000 Kelvin and above (usually older ones) give off a less pleasing white/blue light.
The Environmental Defense website provides a handy chart comparing the watts and lumens of incandescents versus CFLs, along with further discussion about color temperature.
CONTACTS: EFI, www.efi.org; Environmental Defense, www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagid=630.
SmartCar
Dear EarthTalk: I’ve suddenly been seeing a lot of those tiny “Smart Cars” around. Who makes them and what is their fuel efficiency? And I’m all for fuel efficiency, but are these cars safe?
-- David Yu, Bend, Ore.
Originally the brainchild of Lebanese-born entrepreneur/inventor Nicolas Hayek of Swatch watch fame, Smart Cars are designed to be small, fuel-efficient, environmentally responsible and easy to park—really the ultimate in-city vehicle. Back in 1994, Hayek and Swatch signed on with Daimler-Benz (the German maker of the venerable Mercedes line of cars) to develop the unique vehicle; in fact, the company name Smart is derived from a combination of the words Swatch, Mercedes and the word “art.”
When initial sales were slower than hoped for, Hayek and Swatch pulled out of the venture, leaving Daimler-Benz full owner (today Smart is part of Mercedes car division). Meanwhile, rising oil prices have driven up demand for Smart vehicles, and the company began selling them in the U.S. earlier this year.
Measuring just a hair over 8 feet long and less than five feet wide, the company’s flagship “ForTwo” model (named for its human carrying capacity) is about half the size of a traditional car. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rates the car’s fuel efficiency at 33 miles per gallon (mpg) for city driving and 41 mpg on the highway (although actual drivers report slightly lower results). Three ForTwos with bumpers to the curb can fit in a single parallel parking spot.
And with soaring gas prices, the cars have been selling like hotcakes in the U.S. The company’s U.S. distributor is working on importing an additional 15,000 cars before the end of 2008, as its initial order of 25,000 vehicles is almost depleted. Some four dozen Mercedes Benz dealers across the country have long waiting lists for new Smart vehicles, which sell for upwards of $12,000.
As for safety, the ForTwo did well enough in crash tests by the independent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to earn the group’s highest rating—five tars—thanks to the car’s steel racecar-style frame and liberal use of high-tech front and side airbags. Despite such good safety performance for such a tiny car, IIHS testers caution that larger, heavier cars are inherently safer than smaller ones.
Beyond safety concerns, some analysts bemoan the ForTwo’s price tag as unnecessarily high given what you get. The cars are not known for their handling or acceleration, although they can go 80 miles per hour if necessary. The website Treehugger.com suggests that eco-conscious consumers might do better spending their $12,000 on a conventional sub-compact or compact car, many which get equivalent if not better gas mileage not to mention likely faring better in a crash.
But for those who need a great in-city car for short errands and commutes, today’s ForTwo might be just the ticket. Environmentalists are hoping Smart will release the higher mileage diesel version of the ForTwo, which has been available in Europe for several years, in the U.S. soon. And they are keeping their fingers crossed for a hybrid version which could give the hugely successful Toyota Prius—which looks almost huge in comparison—a run for its money in terms of fuel efficiency and savings at the pump.
CONTACTS: Smart USA, www.smartusa.com; IIHS, www.iihs.org.
-- David Yu, Bend, Ore.
Originally the brainchild of Lebanese-born entrepreneur/inventor Nicolas Hayek of Swatch watch fame, Smart Cars are designed to be small, fuel-efficient, environmentally responsible and easy to park—really the ultimate in-city vehicle. Back in 1994, Hayek and Swatch signed on with Daimler-Benz (the German maker of the venerable Mercedes line of cars) to develop the unique vehicle; in fact, the company name Smart is derived from a combination of the words Swatch, Mercedes and the word “art.”
When initial sales were slower than hoped for, Hayek and Swatch pulled out of the venture, leaving Daimler-Benz full owner (today Smart is part of Mercedes car division). Meanwhile, rising oil prices have driven up demand for Smart vehicles, and the company began selling them in the U.S. earlier this year.
Measuring just a hair over 8 feet long and less than five feet wide, the company’s flagship “ForTwo” model (named for its human carrying capacity) is about half the size of a traditional car. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rates the car’s fuel efficiency at 33 miles per gallon (mpg) for city driving and 41 mpg on the highway (although actual drivers report slightly lower results). Three ForTwos with bumpers to the curb can fit in a single parallel parking spot.
And with soaring gas prices, the cars have been selling like hotcakes in the U.S. The company’s U.S. distributor is working on importing an additional 15,000 cars before the end of 2008, as its initial order of 25,000 vehicles is almost depleted. Some four dozen Mercedes Benz dealers across the country have long waiting lists for new Smart vehicles, which sell for upwards of $12,000.
As for safety, the ForTwo did well enough in crash tests by the independent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to earn the group’s highest rating—five tars—thanks to the car’s steel racecar-style frame and liberal use of high-tech front and side airbags. Despite such good safety performance for such a tiny car, IIHS testers caution that larger, heavier cars are inherently safer than smaller ones.
Beyond safety concerns, some analysts bemoan the ForTwo’s price tag as unnecessarily high given what you get. The cars are not known for their handling or acceleration, although they can go 80 miles per hour if necessary. The website Treehugger.com suggests that eco-conscious consumers might do better spending their $12,000 on a conventional sub-compact or compact car, many which get equivalent if not better gas mileage not to mention likely faring better in a crash.
But for those who need a great in-city car for short errands and commutes, today’s ForTwo might be just the ticket. Environmentalists are hoping Smart will release the higher mileage diesel version of the ForTwo, which has been available in Europe for several years, in the U.S. soon. And they are keeping their fingers crossed for a hybrid version which could give the hugely successful Toyota Prius—which looks almost huge in comparison—a run for its money in terms of fuel efficiency and savings at the pump.
CONTACTS: Smart USA, www.smartusa.com; IIHS, www.iihs.org.
electric bikes
Dear EarthTalk: Are there any electric bicycles or scooters that make for a nice cheap, green-friendly commute?
-- Sean Foley, Nashua, N.H.
Bicycle commuting has long been a symbol of greener living, and it is great exercise, too. But most people are probably not up to commutes much beyond five or 10 miles one-way in the interest of time and in not arriving at work too pooped (or sweaty) to pop.
Now a number of battery-powered two-wheelers are coming on the market that won’t get you your exercise but will get you from point A to B and back with minimal environmental impact. Consumers can start greening up their commutes on such vehicles for as little as $1,500 plus about 25 cents a day in electricity costs—not bad at all when you consider that a new car costs thousands of dollars more up front and chugs mass quantities off expensive and polluting gasoline.
Many of us conjuring up images of electric bikes and scooters may envision the finicky mopeds of the 70s and 80s, but today’s offerings are much improved and quite diverse.
Those who want to go fast but stay green should check out some of the electric scooters made by Miami-based EVTAMERICA. Each of the company’s three models tops out at a maximum speed of 45 miles per hour—respectable even on the highway. “People want to go at least 40 mph,” says the company’s co-owner, Fernando Pruna. “Everything built before could only do 25 or 30.”
Meanwhile, eGO of Somerville, Massachusetts makes electric bikes that can speed along at 25 miles per hour in “go fast” mode, but also have a “go far” mode, which trades off speed for distance (some 24 miles on a single charge). While eGO’s bikes may look diminutive, they are known for their strength. “Our bikes are powerful enough to tow a car,” says Kevin Kazlauskas, the company’s operations manager. “These are not toys, and customers aren’t treating them like toys.”
Another option might be an electric scooter made by Houston-based Veloteq. These scooters only go 20 miles per hour at top speed, but they can cover up to 50 miles on a single charge, which is more than enough distance to get most commuters back and forth to work, as long as they can avoid fast-moving highways along the way. A side benefit of the speed limitation on Veloteq’s vehicles is that they are typically exempt from licensing, registration and insurance regulations in most jurisdictions—yet another way to save money over those car drivers still mired in their 20th century car commutes.
Opting for one of these new scooters or bikes over a car commute will take a big bite out of your carbon footprint, but the future promises even greener versions. The lead-acid batteries that most models use today will soon be replaced with greener and more efficient varieties, lithium ion and nickel zinc being two of the more promising formats. These new fangled batteries will make the vehicles cost more, at least initially, but they will also trim bike weight significantly and provide a lot more distance per charge. And eGo is working on a model with a small solar array behind the seat to extend the bike’s range once its electric charge starts to run low.
CONTACTS: EVTAMERICA, www.evtamerica.com; eGO, www.egovehicles.com; Veloteq, www.veloteq.com.
-- Sean Foley, Nashua, N.H.
Bicycle commuting has long been a symbol of greener living, and it is great exercise, too. But most people are probably not up to commutes much beyond five or 10 miles one-way in the interest of time and in not arriving at work too pooped (or sweaty) to pop.
Now a number of battery-powered two-wheelers are coming on the market that won’t get you your exercise but will get you from point A to B and back with minimal environmental impact. Consumers can start greening up their commutes on such vehicles for as little as $1,500 plus about 25 cents a day in electricity costs—not bad at all when you consider that a new car costs thousands of dollars more up front and chugs mass quantities off expensive and polluting gasoline.
Many of us conjuring up images of electric bikes and scooters may envision the finicky mopeds of the 70s and 80s, but today’s offerings are much improved and quite diverse.
Those who want to go fast but stay green should check out some of the electric scooters made by Miami-based EVTAMERICA. Each of the company’s three models tops out at a maximum speed of 45 miles per hour—respectable even on the highway. “People want to go at least 40 mph,” says the company’s co-owner, Fernando Pruna. “Everything built before could only do 25 or 30.”
Meanwhile, eGO of Somerville, Massachusetts makes electric bikes that can speed along at 25 miles per hour in “go fast” mode, but also have a “go far” mode, which trades off speed for distance (some 24 miles on a single charge). While eGO’s bikes may look diminutive, they are known for their strength. “Our bikes are powerful enough to tow a car,” says Kevin Kazlauskas, the company’s operations manager. “These are not toys, and customers aren’t treating them like toys.”
Another option might be an electric scooter made by Houston-based Veloteq. These scooters only go 20 miles per hour at top speed, but they can cover up to 50 miles on a single charge, which is more than enough distance to get most commuters back and forth to work, as long as they can avoid fast-moving highways along the way. A side benefit of the speed limitation on Veloteq’s vehicles is that they are typically exempt from licensing, registration and insurance regulations in most jurisdictions—yet another way to save money over those car drivers still mired in their 20th century car commutes.
Opting for one of these new scooters or bikes over a car commute will take a big bite out of your carbon footprint, but the future promises even greener versions. The lead-acid batteries that most models use today will soon be replaced with greener and more efficient varieties, lithium ion and nickel zinc being two of the more promising formats. These new fangled batteries will make the vehicles cost more, at least initially, but they will also trim bike weight significantly and provide a lot more distance per charge. And eGo is working on a model with a small solar array behind the seat to extend the bike’s range once its electric charge starts to run low.
CONTACTS: EVTAMERICA, www.evtamerica.com; eGO, www.egovehicles.com; Veloteq, www.veloteq.com.
natural headache cures
To make tension headaches go away, the Farmers’ Almanac recommends applying an ice pack to the neck and upper back, or, even better, getting someone to massage those areas. Also, soaking the feet in hot water can divert blood from your head to your feet, easing any kind of headache pain in the process.
Another all-natural headache cure is acupressure (like acupuncture, but without the needles), which promotes healing throughout the body by stimulating channels of energy known as meridians. Victoria Abreo, alternative medicine editor for the website BellaOnline, says that anyone suffering from a tension headache can employ a simple acupressure technique to help relieve the pain: “With one hand, press the shallow indention in the back of the head at the base of the skull. Simultaneously, with the thumb and forefinger of the other hand, press firmly into the upper hollows of the eye sockets, right where they straddle the bridge of the nose and meet the ‘t’ of the eyebrow bridge.” She says to press softy at first, and then more firmly, holding for three to five minutes.
As for migraines, avoiding certain trigger foods might be key to staving them off. Abreo says migraine sufferers should try steering clear of dairy products, processed meat, red wine, caffeine and chocolate. New research has shown that some people with specific dietary deficiencies are more prone to migraines.
According to Dr. Linda White, who writes about natural health for Mother Earth News, some recent clinical trials have shown three nutritional supplements—magnesium, riboflavin and coenzyme Q10—to be particularly effective at reducing the frequency and severity of migraines. Also, a number of herbs—including feverfew, butterbur, lavender, gingko biloba, rosemary and chamomile—have proven track records in preventing or stopping migraines. Since herbs can be potent and are not regulated or tested, headache sufferers should consult a trusted doctor or naturopath before using alternative remedies.
CONTACTS: Farmers’ Almanac, www.farmersalmanac.com; BellaOnline, www.bellaonline.com; Mother Earth News, www.motherearthnews.com.
Another all-natural headache cure is acupressure (like acupuncture, but without the needles), which promotes healing throughout the body by stimulating channels of energy known as meridians. Victoria Abreo, alternative medicine editor for the website BellaOnline, says that anyone suffering from a tension headache can employ a simple acupressure technique to help relieve the pain: “With one hand, press the shallow indention in the back of the head at the base of the skull. Simultaneously, with the thumb and forefinger of the other hand, press firmly into the upper hollows of the eye sockets, right where they straddle the bridge of the nose and meet the ‘t’ of the eyebrow bridge.” She says to press softy at first, and then more firmly, holding for three to five minutes.
As for migraines, avoiding certain trigger foods might be key to staving them off. Abreo says migraine sufferers should try steering clear of dairy products, processed meat, red wine, caffeine and chocolate. New research has shown that some people with specific dietary deficiencies are more prone to migraines.
According to Dr. Linda White, who writes about natural health for Mother Earth News, some recent clinical trials have shown three nutritional supplements—magnesium, riboflavin and coenzyme Q10—to be particularly effective at reducing the frequency and severity of migraines. Also, a number of herbs—including feverfew, butterbur, lavender, gingko biloba, rosemary and chamomile—have proven track records in preventing or stopping migraines. Since herbs can be potent and are not regulated or tested, headache sufferers should consult a trusted doctor or naturopath before using alternative remedies.
CONTACTS: Farmers’ Almanac, www.farmersalmanac.com; BellaOnline, www.bellaonline.com; Mother Earth News, www.motherearthnews.com.
pain meds
Dear EarthTalk: Are there natural headache remedies that can get me off of Tylenol, Advil and other medicines whose side effects can be as bad as or worse than the pain that led me to use them?
-- Jan Levinson, Portland, Maine
Many of us may be too dependent on over-the-counter painkillers to treat the occasional headache, especially given the side effects of such drugs. Ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin) can increase the risk of heart and circulation problems—including heart attack and stroke—and is also tough on the digestive tract. Too much acetaminophen (Tylenol) has been linked to nausea, diarrhea, and kidney and liver problems. Many natural health care practitioners disparage drugs for merely masking the symptoms of larger problems.
All headaches are not the same and gobbling down pain pills will not address the causes, whatever they may be. Some headaches are caused by tension; others stem from sinus congestion, caffeine withdrawal, constipation, food allergies, spinal misalignment or lack of sleep. And then there are migraines, which researchers think are neurological in nature: The brain fails to constrict the nerve pathways that open the arteries to the brain, resulting in a pounding headache as blood flows in unchecked. Assessing what kind of headache you may have can help lead the way to a solution beyond deadening the pain with a pill.
-- Jan Levinson, Portland, Maine
Many of us may be too dependent on over-the-counter painkillers to treat the occasional headache, especially given the side effects of such drugs. Ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin) can increase the risk of heart and circulation problems—including heart attack and stroke—and is also tough on the digestive tract. Too much acetaminophen (Tylenol) has been linked to nausea, diarrhea, and kidney and liver problems. Many natural health care practitioners disparage drugs for merely masking the symptoms of larger problems.
All headaches are not the same and gobbling down pain pills will not address the causes, whatever they may be. Some headaches are caused by tension; others stem from sinus congestion, caffeine withdrawal, constipation, food allergies, spinal misalignment or lack of sleep. And then there are migraines, which researchers think are neurological in nature: The brain fails to constrict the nerve pathways that open the arteries to the brain, resulting in a pounding headache as blood flows in unchecked. Assessing what kind of headache you may have can help lead the way to a solution beyond deadening the pain with a pill.
unconscious Council?
Is it POSSIBLE that, after being responsible for MULTIPLE financial fiascos costing the taxpayers HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars in change orders and cost overruns- the 500k CC addition, the 500k still-unfinished bathrooms that had no water, sewer, or electric hookups included, the 300k in pool losses this year so that 6 Springs kids can use it, multiple errors on the website from the Finance Dept regarding hundreds of additional thousands of dollars in revenues we may have had (nobody seems to know), no contracts or disclosure of itemized pool revenues from meets, rentals, scuba guys, water polo, private swim team, etc., and various other municipal snafus- the Council would even CONSIDER giving the City Manager a vote of confidence? A pink slip is more in order, if not an arrest warrant.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
pool audit needed
Is it possible that there is 100k in revenue that is NOT reported- for the swim team, the scuba guys, the swim meets, and the water polo club? If so, that would mean that our losses would ONLY be 200k this year! What a deal! of course, that would mean explaining why that revenue has NOT been released or accounted for, AND where that money went. It would also necessitate a complete independent review and audit of the pool finances for the past five years or so, as this could easily have been going on for YEARS. Nobody knows for sure. Lets find out once and for all. Clear the air. If its on the up and up, the audit will show that, or not. If there IS NO audit we have to wonder WHY NOT? What are they hiding and WHY are they hiding it? More mismanagement, unresponsiveness, deception, and secrecy from the City Manager. Totally unacceptable.
lack of logic or facts
IF, in fact, you read the whole paragraph of pool facts that was clearly delineated, which of THOSE facts and figures do you dispute? ANY? You, again, have no other facts or figures to back up your unsubstantiated opinion. STILL. You say the facts presented are garbage yet do NOT say why you disagree with them OR present figures that you believe are correct. In other words, more opinionated BUT unsubstantiated BS. If we waited for City officials to respond to our requests we may NEVER get any replies, because city officials really DONT want the residents to know how badly they are screwing things up on a daily basis. Fortunately, there ARE people who KNOW the accurate numbers and are willing to share them. STILL no numbers, logic, or reasoning is presented as counter arguements! NONE. ZIP. ZERO. NADA...just more BS. Go back to sleep, boring one - you are wasting our time.
commentary
The Bored One is silent. He offers NO facts or figures to dispute the ones presented, probably because he HAS no other facts or figures to present. He has been exposed as having NO rationale or facts to back up his opinion. If he had some, they would have been presented by now, but there are NONE. Can it be that he is a taxpayer who is so accustomed to being ripped off by the Mayor, Council, and City Manager on a daily, 24/7, 365 days a year basis that it has become monotonous to him? Can it be that the taxpayers getting ones pocket picked, mugged, and/or robbed on a regular basis by incompetent, inept, and/or corrupt city officials that it has become humdrum? Or could it be that this poster is one of the Chosen Few contractors and/or special interests who are planning to gorge themselves at the City's trough, at the expense of the rest of us taxpayers? Is it a coincidence that The Bored One sounds so much like the Borge-Man?
secretive
It is amazing that any knowledgable person would suggest that Freedom of Information requests are harrassment of City officials. FOI involves the residents rights to know what their City government is doing and the City's legal and municipal obligation to let the residents know. if there were more transparency on the part of the City we could get this information off their website but the little information there was so erroneous as to be worthless to any interested observer. What is the City hiding? Doral has a ton of information on their website, why not ours? The City Manager is secretive, overpaid, controlling, and incompetent. Perhaps THATS what they are hiding !?
hot air
The Bored One wanted facts and figures and was given facts and figures. Does he have any contrary facts or figures? Is he disputing the facts and figures that have been presented? If not, then maybe he should quiet down. Maybe then he could learn something about what is REALLY happening at the pool, and other places. I have neither heard nor seen any contradicting facts presented. Perhaps he is just another blowhard, without rationale of substantiating facts to back him up, in which case we should ignore his feeble attempts to refute the ongoing City fiascos and mismanagement that is occurring each and every day and costing the taxpayers Hundreds of Thousands of dollars every time. Sounds like a BS naysayer to me.
hot air
The Bored One wanted facts and figures and was given facts and figures. Does he have any contrary facts or figures? Is he disputing the facts and figures that have been presented? If not, then maybe he should quiet down. Maybe then he could learn something about what is REALLY happening at the pool, and other places. I have neither heard nor seen any contradicting facts presented. Perhaps he is just another blowhard, without rationale of substantiating facts to back him up, in which case we should ignore his feeble attempts to refute the ongoing City fiascos and mismanagement that is occurring each and every day and costing the taxpayers Hundreds of Thousands of dollars every time. Sounds like a BS naysayer to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)