I use far less electricity than any home my size in this town, probably. And I contribute more electricity to the grid than I use. I'm doing more than my part.
And my son takes public transportation every day.
And both he and my daughter will do so next year.
And I will likely stop driving my car for commuting next year.
And not using A/C is a "health issue" and a "electronics longevity issue" here in Phoenix.
There was a blog last summer about a freakazoid and his wife who went all summer without using A/C. Here is a portion of their blog:
My commute can be done with no freeways involved. I usually take a little 2-mile jaunt down SR 143 when I'm taking my daughter to school, but that's just to save a little time. I could do it on a number of different roads and not be on the freeway at all..
But I could not use one of those "25-mph max" jobs they sell now, like the GEM cars. I don't have a path from home to here that uses only 25 mph speed limits, unfortunately.
And not using A/C is a "health issue" and a "electronics longevity issue" here in Phoenix.
Coming to a town near you soon. I was just notified by SDG&E that they will be installing smart meters. They are a two way device that keeps track of usage by the hour. Also they can shut off your electricity during heavy usage. To get a variance you have to have a letter from you doctor stating you have life support equipment in your home. No mention of AC being important to health.
Plus SDG&E Does NOT allow you to sell back any power from you solar panels. They are a marginal investment at best here.
Plus the recycle program is broke so no reason to recycle anymore. You still pay for the cans and bottles. The money goes to support other programs. Welcome to a Brave New World California style.
Here is Seattle they want to tear down one freeway AND NOT REPLACE IT.
Didn't the voters say don't replace it?
I know the pols want to put something in despite the vote, but Alaskan Way is an earthquake hazard now and opening up more waterfront access is a boon to downtown. Portland messed their waterway access up and wound up having to put the much in demand bike path on piers sunk in the river. Chattanooga finally moved most of their downtown industrial base out a ways, and made the riverfront a huge drawing card.
Here in Boise we have an urban fishery where you can catch trout in view of the capitol building. The 60's idiots tried to run the interstate right through downtown. The downtown core should be a destination, not a place to run freeways through.
Being Seattle we will need to talk about a solution for at least 10 more years, and I mean that seriously. The Alaskan Way Viaduct nearly fell down in an earthquake 10 years ago. The trouble is we have one group who believe that an expensive under city tunnel is the way to go, while another group believes that we should be frugal and repair/replace it where it stands. We have 3rd group ( and a new mayor) he just wants to take it down and not replace capacity at all - as he is a doom and gloom kind of guy (sounds a lot like larsb)
As Seattle takes NIMBY to new heights the viaduct will continue to decay and will eventually fall down. Hopefully by that time the chicken little's will have moved on, cars will be run inexpensive hydrogen fuel cells and we can build transportation solutions that work.
Sigh wistful thinking I am sure...
BTW a lovely waterfront would be great, but just like I would like a 5 acre estate on the water in Santa Barbara it aint going to happen.
Seattle is a disaster. It's becoming so business and visitor-unfriendly, it's going to become a ghost town in time. There's a reason the eastside suburbs are growing at a higher rate, and more businesses continue to locate there, even with their own congestion problems. I'm a stone's throw from the city, and I go there maybe a few times a year. It's just not worth the hassle, the greenies (with their new mayor) are running it into the ground. As I joke to a friend who lives in the city, Seattle is both vehicle and pedestrian unfriendly.
I'd support a tunnel, and a greatly expanded 520 bridge...if I was wanting Seattle to succeed. You get what you pay for.
Alas you are correct. Mayor McMumbles is a train wreck in slow motion.
My challenge is I like my neighborhood, and I am close enough to walk to Husky Stadium for football. Unfortunately my commute takes me across 520 each day - though I am able to carpool twice a week.
There is a noticeable decline in the downtown retail core as people and business flee. I guess on one bright note - if it gets worse, perhaps more people will actually vote and who know we may get a "moderate" is as mayor.
Not holding my breath however.
How about a side bet though - I will bet your favorite coffee drink that either 520 or Alaskan way fall down/sink before any work is started...not say both, but one will fail before any work has begun. What do you think?
"...Michaels has financial ties to big energy interests—ties that he's worked hard to keep secret. ..."
Apparently.... the transparency of data issue does not apply to skeptics.
For the record, I am all for open records. In the past, when I publish something (the articles are not related to climate) the raw data is freely available to anyone. I encourage people to look at the data and let me know what they think. The only way to advance our understanding is to have as many people as possible look at the information.
The whole process can be a lot of fun. As an example, throwing out an idea in a stalled meeting can often get people to react. People will attack the idea from a lot of different angles. Sometimes, after people have had a chance to think about it, the discussion comes full circle back to the original point I made. Often the idea is improved upon and sometimes it is rejected. In the end I find it better not to try to take ownership of the idea, get offended by criticism of the idea, or interject my philosophy or beliefs. The discussion on climate change would be better if people left their beliefs at the door....not as exciting maybe, but better.
If you can recognize that people can have ulterior motives on one side of the debate, then why not admit the same thing could happen on the other side?
The only way to advance our understanding is to have as many people as possible look at the information.
That is the way science should be. Sadly with the GW debate EGOs and Money trump honest science. Over the last two decades it has been a one way street. Those that opposed AGW were left out in the cold or denied access to the meetings.
Mother Jones is hardly an unbiased blog. And some of the biggest polluters have also been the biggest spenders on alternative energy. ARCO now BP was a pioneer in Solar Cell production and research. So tagging a GW dissenter as not credible because of their research grant money is hardly fair. I knew many scientists that came to the Arctic to study everything you can imagine. Most were there on the oil company dime. I would believe a scientist working for the Feds on the same level as one working for an oil or coal company. "Trust but verify".
Both of those structures could fail even without an earthquake or other event. They are simply ancient, and like so much other infrastructure, unmaintained to the point of negligence. Every time I drive on 520, which isn't often, I think of what it would do in a quake...and I never drive on the viaduct. Seeing as the greenie NIMBYs have held up progress for so long and will continue to do so, a failure before replacement seems more and more likely.
As retail and corporate offices continue to flee eastward, and so many who live in the city refuse to allow a world class transit system and at the same time refuse to submit to the will of the automobile, what kind of future do they think their city will have? No jobs and difficult transportation options...not attractive. But maybe the planet will be "saved"....
Seeing as the greenie NIMBYs have held up progress for so long
The environmentalists are their own worst enemies. In CA they have blocked clean alternative energy and mass transit. Solar, Wind and Geothermal have all fallen victim to the less than bright Environmentalist agenda. Now they are blocking the very high speed rail they pushed off onto the voters last November.
You're assuming that Green's are any more cohesive a group than, say, Democrats. You can lump them in a category, but that doesn't mean the lumpees don't have competing agendas of their own.
Haven't seen Kernick in recent days - hope he has power. His neighbors in VT just voted to shut the nuke plant there. It makes a third of the state's power but there's a lot of concern about the pipes leaking. And the nuke's owners make Toyota look like forthright angels when it comes to playing hide the ball. (Boston.com)
I "dodged a bullet" again with the snowstorms. I was in Meh-ico the last week doing some AGW research on the carbon-neutrality of consuming tequila vs. Absolut. Also a lot of shrimp laid down their lives in this quest for knowledge.
I can report back to you all that AGW is on the top of the list of concerns of many of the people I met; whether tourists or locals. I saw many Mexicans who were turning their backs on the use of carbon-based fuels, and deciding to live in corrugated-tin and cinder-block squalor just so they wouldn't produce more CO2. I'm sure larsb would have been off the bus at every opportunity thanking them for leading such a carbon-neutral lifestyle.
Regarding Vermont Yankee - it has served a useful life, and has run long past its planned lifespan right now. Many of the parts of this plant are just simply wearing out right now. Steel pipes erode over time with fluidflow, and the reactor vessel itself wears away under constant neutron bombardment. - the shell gets thinner and thinner. Vermont Yankee needs to be shutdown, just like your typical car with 250,000 miles will be less and less reliable. There are several other nuclear plants reaching 40 - 50 years of age though - I believe there are several in CT. These also need to be shutdown soon. As a country, there will be a decrease in the amount of energy produced from nuclear plants. I believe under normal circumstance it takes over 10 years to get a nuclear plant up and running.
Radiation is about as natural as it gets. The Earth is constantly bathed in it from the sun and other stellar sources, most of which the atmosphere blocks from us.
But as having been an owner of a house with a radon mitigation system, I do know we're constantly exposed to radiation naturally. It's just nature's way of keeping the Earth from being overrun by our species. Everything natural isn't good for humans. :P A little tritium from Vermont Yankee isn't a problem compared to the other potential issues of that plant (how about our overdue New England earthquake, that could rupture a crack in that old reactor vessel?).
Hey, I didn't see much mention here about the dud of that tsunami-wave emanating from the Chile earthquake. I was watching CNN's coverage of Hawaii, and nothing much happened. I think most people would consider this a failure of the current scientific models; though they had such a wide-range of possibilities that I'm sure the effect did slip into that range of wave-heights. But to people who evacuated and cancelled plans and work, I'm sure they were all thinking that scientists have proven again to be alarmists - looking for fame and media coverage. I know they had to prepare for worst-case, but their model was so far from reality, this (non)event made them look foolish.
The US is doing well in the Winter Olympics this year, the best showing ever. I attribute this to all the cold weather we have been having here. We are getting accustomed to it. Just another sign of global cooling.
The tritium release from Vermont Yankee was into a river, where it is diluted far past a trillion:1 parts. Tritium is a beta emitter only able to penetrate the upper layers of skin. The amount a person could ingest in a glass of water from the river is negligible.
Compared to the amount of radon which is radium sourced, and seeps from underground into all land and water, you don't have anything to fear from nuclear plants. Radon and other radioactive isotopes in our food and water are omnipresent in the environment; though we are not alerted to that as science believes most of those levels are too low to be harmful. Just as science believes that the leveles of pesticides and chemicals in our food and water are too low to be of concern.
Similarly it is illogical from an unbiased scientific standpoint to worry about a change of PPM in CO2 when there are many more important contributing factors to our climate. I sincerely believe that climatologists are intentionally and unintentionally on the AGW bandwagon self-justifying their otherwise "backwater" science. They are using data of questionable integrity (methodology over the years), editting the data with bias, and using their "results" for their and others personal gain and motives.
Seeing I've just toured the Mayan ruins in Mexico, maybe I can similarly use "data" to jump on the 2012 armageddon bandwagon. There is a valid theory, and the Haiti and Chile earthquakes of increasing intensity, are data proving the Earth is in a trend of increasing calamity. So no need to worry about CO2 levels, as we only have 3 years left.
Braden: For 2012, the records show that when we’ve look into the history of the Earth, into the ice cores in Antarctica, for example, it preserved a record of Earth’s past. When we look into those ice cores at the dates that are the fractals or the seed patterns for 2012, they tell us that in those dates the magnetic fields of the Earth became weaker. The energy from the sun was stronger so that the ice on the poles began to melt. The oceans began to rise, the climate began to shift, and the weather patterns began to change.
Q: We are experiencing that now.
Braden: Precisely, and that is the whole point. Has the Earth gone through a big change? Yes. Does it mean that something is wrong or something is broken? No! It always happens when we reach this point in a great cycle. When we are this distance from the energy source at the center of our Milky Way, when Earth is tilted and oriented the way it is, apparently, this is what always happens.
Therefore, to a large extent, we are already experiencing the great changes that so many have predicted. We are already seeing cities wiped off the face of the Earth near shallow coastlines. We are already seeing major magnitude earthquakes and tsunamis. We are already seeing forest fires ranging them across vast, open spaces. We are seeing millions of people die from disease. The United States is blessed in that we’re not experiencing as much here as in other parts of the world. But such change can happen anywhere and everywhere.
I'm not saying to intentionally pollute, or that it is okay for Vermont Yankee to be leaking in the river. What I am saying though is when you do the math, the amount of radiation you could possibly get from the tritium going in the river, is much, much smaller than what you get everyday naturally from the Earth - at least in my area of the country.
If I'm getting 1,000 units of radiation in my air and water from radon everyday, I don't freak out because man has upped that by 1 to 1,001. Similarly I don't blame any GW on mankind, as mathematically what we release into the air is small compared to what nature does, and our energy-release is insignificant compared to the amount of solar and other cosmic energy that hits the Earth and its atmosphere.
I posted the 2012 links to show you how "data" can be used to support theories. I don't believe in the 2012 theories of the apocalypse anymore than I believe in Al Gore's, or the Day After Tomorrow sci-fi stories. It was rather impressive though of the Mayans to have such a great understanding of astronomy, with the sun at the center and the orbits of the planets understood; when it would be a couple of thousands of years until the Greeks came along and put the Earth at the center of the solar system (?). Western science didn't correct their mistake until when? oh around the time of Galileo.
Anyway you'll probably see natural disasters being used as data to support the 2012 theory, which will be similar, though not as professionally supported, as the AGW-cult.
Why not read about their origin as a recent offshoot of Brown Bears. And there's some good info. in there on how the Earth's climate has been changing and more extreme then the present.
I got to thinking this morning about how cars and their owners are the largest targets in the country for our power and money hungry politicians. Just think about the number of taxes and regulations in place having to do with owning and driving autos from the day you buy it to the day you send it to the crusher. The global warming hoax is just another assault on car owners.
In Pat Buchanan's column this morning:
Today's global warming hysteria is the hoax of the 21st century. H.L. Mencken had it right: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
newdavidg says, "In Pat Buchanan's column this morning"
Wait - do you regularly read that column? That would be a fairly unusual thing to do. He's a....well, I could get really nasty listing his bad attributes, so I just won't do it.
Anyway, there is no such thing as an "anti-car" conspiracy by politicians.
There might a few "far left wackos" in Congress who are environmentally opposed to pollution and see cars as a possible way to address some of it, but as a general rule to say "politicians are assaulting car owners" is not on the mark.
There has not been a single piece of "anti-car" legislation passed in my lifetime, at least to my knowledge.
There have been "anti-pollution" rules and laws, and those are good for 100% of Americans, regardless of your political slant.
The CAFE was a frontal assault against the automakers. The Feds were trying to get rid of larger vehicles with fines. That was anti-car any way you slice it. It backfired and companies like Toyota sold very small cars to compensate for their behemoth SUVs and PU trucks. Same goes for our 3 domestics.
CARB has continually assaulted the industry. Remember the 1998 mandate for 10% EV with no real chance of that happening. The ethanol debacle is a direct threat to the auto industry. I would say we have a very large contingency of far left eco nuts in this country that would love to eliminate the automobile from all but the elites.
You have not been following this thread closely. The folks in Seattle are facing an infrastructure that is deteriorating fast. The local, state and Federal government do not want to encourage auto traffic by repairing or replacing needed roads. They have built mass transit with NO auto parking available. If that is not anti-car what is? They expect you to ride a bicycle in the rain to the mass transit.
My sister the Liberal UW professor has lived off and on in Seattle since the 1960s. She has never owned a car. Rides her bike rain or shine. She is probably part of the anti-car movement in Washington.
The whole AGW is based on the premise that we get rid of the Internal combustion engine. Says so in Egore's book.
Another do as I say not as I do anti-car politician. The government at all levels have an anti-car agenda. They do love the gas tax and license fees though.
Mayor McBicycle
Posted by Joni Balter Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn made much of his bicycle riding prowess during the mayoral campaign. His supporters created a campaign issue about how he and other candidates traveled around town. The discussion about how politicians get to work seemed ridiculous to me and my column at the time captures how I feel.
Flash forward to McGinn now in office. He clearly believes in his anti-car, small carbon footprint stuff, enough to drive his security detail a tad crazy. Eli Sanders at the Stranger explained that the small footprint part of the equation is bit off because as mayor, McGinn has a sizable SUV full of security riding behind him. You know the next question,, don't you. Why not a Prius? Come on, Mr. Mayor. Couldn't you have a Prius or some other more environment-friendly vehicle in tow? The answer, apparently is, no.
Didn't you see the recent thread where Seattle voters voted to tear down Alaskan Way and not replace it with any road? I don't remember seeing the gov'mint taking out ads encouraging people to vote that way.
Funny about your sister. I have a friend my age in Seattle who doesn't own a car or bike. He doesn't even have a license and gets around fine. He'll bum a ride now and then but I know he goes weeks if not months without setting foot in a car.
I haven't gone that far, but since I work at home (and my wife has "retired" for a while), we could easily get by with one car. We did that for one 7 year stretch in the 80's in fact (I haven't had a commute since '83).
But when your cars are as old as ours, it's nice to know you have wheels in case one doesn't start. But I guess Enterprise would pick me up. :shades:
Seeing the dangers of tsunamis, of which the U.S. northwest is very exposed to, and may have < 30 minutes to get away, or live in a very flat area such as Florida; I'd always suggets to keep a good vehicle with gas, in those areas.
I remember seeing a few Discovery shows, that showed that Seattle is in a very dangerous neighborhood, being between an active Mt. Rainier, and some nasty seismic faults just offshore. The residents may want to keep as much mobility as possible.
Yeah, the evacuation from New Orleans worked well eh? And they had a day or two notice to get out of town and beat the traffic.
I hear what you are saying, but there's not much notice of earthquakes or even tornados. Fires, volcano eruptions and floods, maybe. I ran down six flights of a 7 story building in Anchorage during one quake (~6.8 iirc), and getting to my car wasn't on my agenda. :shades:
Seattle itself isn't in severe danger of tsunamis or volcanic effects aside from ash...Seattle will fall victim to land movements and liquefaction, like some areas of SF in 1989. Much of it is on fill/regrade or unstable hillside...big rainstorms create landslide havoc in that area. Coastal WA is very vulnerable to tsunamis, and northern Puget Sound could be at risk too. The southern foothill areas could be vulnerable to lahars from Rainier, should it blow its top.
in the Seattle area. I believe this one was 6.1 on the scale. I was working in the 4th floor of the 40-88 engineering building at Boeing's Everett widebody jet factory complex. I tell you all what, I just grabbed my chair and rolled it away and got underneath my desk. The whole building was shaking so violently I thought it was coming down for sure. But it stayed intact.
I looked up during the shaking and a Manufacturing Engineer named Rick that sat right by me was walking around in a daze. I shouted "Rick...get underneath your desk, right now!"
I had to say it twice to him, he didn't seem to hear me the first time. After whatever time frame that thing went on for was over (something like 50 seconds) we poked our heads up in a real daze and wondered if our building was OK. It was later inspected and it withstood it completely. It was built to withstand powerful quakes. The only problem was a few cracks in a few places in some concrete standards. Nothing that needed immediate attention, even.
Wow...the Company gave us all the rest of that day off, it was in Feb.2001 sometime. Little did we know what was to happen several months later in that year.
steve, that thing totally freaked me out! I mean, it felt like a very powerful jackhammer was set on top of our building and was just pounding us in to the ground. Shaking us all in the process. And it was loud! I honestly felt like this event might end all of our lives. Scared me badly. I thought the ceiling was coming down any moment.
Tears could be seen on some faces but mostly it was this dazed and confused look, Boeing was smart to give us the rest of the day off. I don't remember if we lost power. I don't think so, and even if we did Boeing has a very reliable backup power generator they can put in to play.
Must have been shallow, or maybe it's related to the soils there as Fintail mentioned. The ones I exerienced were deeper and more rolling. It is "different" watching stuff sway around you.
Yes I was referring to the general area when I said "Seattle". Wherever you are in the area, you have a better chance if you have an auto then if you don't. :P
If the quake is offshore and the tsunami is 10 min away I'd rather drive up a hillside road, then try to run it (especially if you're 80, or have toddlers with you). If the volcanoes get noisy I'm driving as far away as I can get with as many supplies as I can put in the vehicle; then I'll be fresh if I need to go to a backpack and sneakers.
And don't get us started on the moderate advantages of a PU or true-SUV in these cases.
Reading about the Chile earthquake, which is just 1 form of the power of nature, I see where some islands off the Chile coast may have been pushed up 6 feet. This earthquake is another wonderful example of how natural forces dwarves humanity's minor efforts and effects.
I noted Pat Buchanan's column because I didn't want to take credit for finding the Mencken quote which was the real point of my post, and I find it worthwhile to read a variety of columnists.
Politicians are not necessarily anti-car per se but surely prey upon car manufacturers, dealers, and end users (read: drivers) because they are easy marks for an endless array of taxes and regulations. The latest outrage is the proliferation of red light cameras. The global warming issue is made to order for a connection to autos because autos use fossil fuel.
The huge positive contribution of the automobile to the lifestyle we enjoy is undeniable. We should continue to improve their efficiency and research all alternative options to push them down the highway.
Incidentally, unless you live in downtown Phoenix and don't travel widely, you might find expanding your geographical horizons by way of foot, bike, bus, or light rail somewhat challenging, especially in July.
I live 5.3 miles from work, about a 40 minute bus ride with "layovers." I also have ridden and can ride my bicycle.
Light rail goes through the center of town, and one block from my work.
I could view getting around "sans car" as a fun little challenge.
P.S. For past commuting, I've gone through a Segway and two electric bikes, none of which now are serviceable - so I might have to stick with Pedal Power only.....
Its refreshing to find someone who practices what they preach. Bravo!
If I had a viable alternative to my SUV (20 mpg).............., but alas I need to haul stuff and there is no PT anywhere near.
The US is far too large to support a viable mass transit system other than for tightly packed cities and for freight. I would love to train it between Phoenix and Chicago but the train doesn't even go through Phoenix and the cost is prohibitive. Plane is cheaper if you don't bring much stuff with you.
Bottom line is: cars are here to stay and the sooner we remove the global warming hammer being used by the enviros to place costly and non productive burdens on car ownership, the sooner we can concentrate on really useful programs to improve the transportation landscape.
THIS is a better indication of how "the average person who could afford a car but chooses to ride public transportation anyway" would fare using a mass transit system.
It's NOT the old stereotypical "buses are only for stinky old homeless/crazy people" like is was in the past.
I would not call her a snob on a bus. I call her a sponge on society. She does not have a car because her parents would not continue making lease payments. So she sponges off society riding the bus subsidized by those of us that own cars and pay road taxes. She sponges off her friends for rides when the bus is inconvenient. When mass transit becomes self sustaining I will consider it something besides welfare for the few paid by the rest of US.
We all talk about how great transit is and how we should all abandon our cars to take mass transit. But many of us do not. Why? Sometimes it’s because transit is not available. Sometimes it’s because it is inconvenient. A lot of times it’s because of the poor customer service/overall experience.
The last time I took Metrorail, the train was late, dirty, and packed full of people. One very large lady (I use the term loosely) shoved me and screamed that I needed to move further in (I was already touching the person in front of me), while someone else sneezed in my face. I then had to wait 15 minutes to change trains (they’re supposed to come every 6 minutes). I could have driven to my destination much faster, for about the same cost, and without the headache and future cold.
Comments
and more importantly as cars transition from gas to other sources of energy why wouldn't you drive?
And my son takes public transportation every day.
And both he and my daughter will do so next year.
And I will likely stop driving my car for commuting next year.
And not using A/C is a "health issue" and a "electronics longevity issue" here in Phoenix.
There was a blog last summer about a freakazoid and his wife who went all summer without using A/C. Here is a portion of their blog:
Not Using A/C in the Summer In Phoenix, Also Known As "The Idiot And His Wife"
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
But I could not use one of those "25-mph max" jobs they sell now, like the GEM cars. I don't have a path from home to here that uses only 25 mph speed limits, unfortunately.
Coming to a town near you soon. I was just notified by SDG&E that they will be installing smart meters. They are a two way device that keeps track of usage by the hour. Also they can shut off your electricity during heavy usage. To get a variance you have to have a letter from you doctor stating you have life support equipment in your home. No mention of AC being important to health.
Plus SDG&E Does NOT allow you to sell back any power from you solar panels. They are a marginal investment at best here.
Plus the recycle program is broke so no reason to recycle anymore. You still pay for the cans and bottles. The money goes to support other programs. Welcome to a Brave New World California style.
Methinks you need to find another state more compatible with your beliefs...
I have a SmartMeter right now. Can check my previous days usage by 10:00 a.m. the following day.
Works very cool. (pun intended)
Didn't the voters say don't replace it?
I know the pols want to put something in despite the vote, but Alaskan Way is an earthquake hazard now and opening up more waterfront access is a boon to downtown. Portland messed their waterway access up and wound up having to put the much in demand bike path on piers sunk in the river. Chattanooga finally moved most of their downtown industrial base out a ways, and made the riverfront a huge drawing card.
Here in Boise we have an urban fishery where you can catch trout in view of the capitol building. The 60's idiots tried to run the interstate right through downtown. The downtown core should be a destination, not a place to run freeways through.
Since when do politicians pay any attention to voters ?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Being Seattle we will need to talk about a solution for at least 10 more years, and I mean that seriously. The Alaskan Way Viaduct nearly fell down in an earthquake 10 years ago. The trouble is we have one group who believe that an expensive under city tunnel is the way to go, while another group believes that we should be frugal and repair/replace it where it stands. We have 3rd group ( and a new mayor) he just wants to take it down and not replace capacity at all - as he is a doom and gloom kind of guy (sounds a lot like larsb)
As Seattle takes NIMBY to new heights the viaduct will continue to decay and will eventually fall down. Hopefully by that time the chicken little's will have moved on, cars will be run inexpensive hydrogen fuel cells and we can build transportation solutions that work.
Sigh wistful thinking I am sure...
BTW a lovely waterfront would be great, but just like I would like a 5 acre estate on the water in Santa Barbara it aint going to happen.
I'd support a tunnel, and a greatly expanded 520 bridge...if I was wanting Seattle to succeed. You get what you pay for.
Alas you are correct. Mayor McMumbles is a train wreck in slow motion.
My challenge is I like my neighborhood, and I am close enough to walk to Husky Stadium for football. Unfortunately my commute takes me across 520 each day - though I am able to carpool twice a week.
There is a noticeable decline in the downtown retail core as people and business flee. I guess on one bright note - if it gets worse, perhaps more people will actually vote and who know we may get a "moderate" is as mayor.
Not holding my breath however.
How about a side bet though - I will bet your favorite coffee drink that either 520 or Alaskan way fall down/sink before any work is started...not say both, but one will fail before any work has begun. What do you think?
"...Michaels has financial ties to big energy interests—ties that he's worked hard to keep secret. ..."
Apparently.... the transparency of data issue does not apply to skeptics.
For the record, I am all for open records. In the past, when I publish something (the articles are not related to climate) the raw data is freely available to anyone. I encourage people to look at the data and let me know what they think. The only way to advance our understanding is to have as many people as possible look at the information.
The whole process can be a lot of fun. As an example, throwing out an idea in a stalled meeting can often get people to react. People will attack the idea from a lot of different angles. Sometimes, after people have had a chance to think about it, the discussion comes full circle back to the original point I made. Often the idea is improved upon and sometimes it is rejected. In the end I find it better not to try to take ownership of the idea, get offended by criticism of the idea, or interject my philosophy or beliefs. The discussion on climate change would be better if people left their beliefs at the door....not as exciting maybe, but better.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That is the way science should be. Sadly with the GW debate EGOs and Money trump honest science. Over the last two decades it has been a one way street. Those that opposed AGW were left out in the cold or denied access to the meetings.
Mother Jones is hardly an unbiased blog. And some of the biggest polluters have also been the biggest spenders on alternative energy. ARCO now BP was a pioneer in Solar Cell production and research. So tagging a GW dissenter as not credible because of their research grant money is hardly fair. I knew many scientists that came to the Arctic to study everything you can imagine. Most were there on the oil company dime. I would believe a scientist working for the Feds on the same level as one working for an oil or coal company. "Trust but verify".
As retail and corporate offices continue to flee eastward, and so many who live in the city refuse to allow a world class transit system and at the same time refuse to submit to the will of the automobile, what kind of future do they think their city will have? No jobs and difficult transportation options...not attractive. But maybe the planet will be "saved"....
The environmentalists are their own worst enemies. In CA they have blocked clean alternative energy and mass transit. Solar, Wind and Geothermal have all fallen victim to the less than bright Environmentalist agenda. Now they are blocking the very high speed rail they pushed off onto the voters last November.
Haven't seen Kernick in recent days - hope he has power. His neighbors in VT just voted to shut the nuke plant there. It makes a third of the state's power but there's a lot of concern about the pipes leaking. And the nuke's owners make Toyota look like forthright angels when it comes to playing hide the ball. (Boston.com)
I can report back to you all that AGW is on the top of the list of concerns of many of the people I met; whether tourists or locals. I saw many Mexicans who were turning their backs on the use of carbon-based fuels, and deciding to live in corrugated-tin and cinder-block squalor just so they wouldn't produce more CO2. I'm sure larsb would have been off the bus at every opportunity thanking them for leading such a carbon-neutral lifestyle.
Regarding Vermont Yankee - it has served a useful life, and has run long past its planned lifespan right now. Many of the parts of this plant are just simply wearing out right now. Steel pipes erode over time with fluidflow, and the reactor vessel itself wears away under constant neutron bombardment. - the shell gets thinner and thinner. Vermont Yankee needs to be shutdown, just like your typical car with 250,000 miles will be less and less reliable. There are several other nuclear plants reaching 40 - 50 years of age though - I believe there are several in CT. These also need to be shutdown soon. As a country, there will be a decrease in the amount of energy produced from nuclear plants. I believe under normal circumstance it takes over 10 years to get a nuclear plant up and running.
The owners of Vermont Yankee wanted a 20 year extension. It is leaking tritium into the groundwater.
So, 10 years to build a new nuke, and 1,000 to clean an old one up?
But as having been an owner of a house with a radon mitigation system, I do know we're constantly exposed to radiation naturally. It's just nature's way of keeping the Earth from being overrun by our species. Everything natural isn't good for humans. :P A little tritium from Vermont Yankee isn't a problem compared to the other potential issues of that plant (how about our overdue New England earthquake, that could rupture a crack in that old reactor vessel?).
Hey, I didn't see much mention here about the dud of that tsunami-wave emanating from the Chile earthquake. I was watching CNN's coverage of Hawaii, and nothing much happened. I think most people would consider this a failure of the current scientific models; though they had such a wide-range of possibilities that I'm sure the effect did slip into that range of wave-heights. But to people who evacuated and cancelled plans and work, I'm sure they were all thinking that scientists have proven again to be alarmists - looking for fame and media coverage. I know they had to prepare for worst-case, but their model was so far from reality, this (non)event made them look foolish.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Compared to the amount of radon which is radium sourced, and seeps from underground into all land and water, you don't have anything to fear from nuclear plants. Radon and other radioactive isotopes in our food and water are omnipresent in the environment; though we are not alerted to that as science believes most of those levels are too low to be harmful. Just as science believes that the leveles of pesticides and chemicals in our food and water are too low to be of concern.
Similarly it is illogical from an unbiased scientific standpoint to worry about a change of PPM in CO2 when there are many more important contributing factors to our climate. I sincerely believe that climatologists are intentionally and unintentionally on the AGW bandwagon self-justifying their otherwise "backwater" science. They are using data of questionable integrity (methodology over the years), editting the data with bias, and using their "results" for their and others personal gain and motives.
Seeing I've just toured the Mayan ruins in Mexico, maybe I can similarly use "data" to jump on the 2012 armageddon bandwagon. There is a valid theory, and the Haiti and Chile earthquakes of increasing intensity, are data proving the Earth is in a trend of increasing calamity. So no need to worry about CO2 levels, as we only have 3 years left.
Braden: For 2012, the records show that when we’ve look into the history of the Earth, into the ice cores in Antarctica, for example, it preserved a record of Earth’s past. When we look into those ice cores at the dates that are the fractals or the seed patterns for 2012, they tell us that in those dates the magnetic fields of the Earth became weaker. The energy from the sun was stronger so that the ice on the poles began to melt. The oceans began to rise, the climate began to shift, and the weather patterns began to change.
Q: We are experiencing that now.
Braden: Precisely, and that is the whole point. Has the Earth gone through a big change? Yes. Does it mean that something is wrong or something is broken? No! It always happens when we reach this point in a great cycle. When we are this distance from the energy source at the center of our Milky Way, when Earth is tilted and oriented the way it is, apparently, this is what always happens.
Therefore, to a large extent, we are already experiencing the great changes that so many have predicted. We are already seeing cities wiped off the face of the Earth near shallow coastlines. We are already seeing major magnitude earthquakes and tsunamis. We are already seeing forest fires ranging them across vast, open spaces. We are seeing millions of people die from disease. The United States is blessed in that we’re not experiencing as much here as in other parts of the world. But such change can happen anywhere and everywhere.
http://www.december212012.com/
And yeah, dump the waste in our rivers. Wonderful solution.
If I'm getting 1,000 units of radiation in my air and water from radon everyday, I don't freak out because man has upped that by 1 to 1,001. Similarly I don't blame any GW on mankind, as mathematically what we release into the air is small compared to what nature does, and our energy-release is insignificant compared to the amount of solar and other cosmic energy that hits the Earth and its atmosphere.
I posted the 2012 links to show you how "data" can be used to support theories. I don't believe in the 2012 theories of the apocalypse anymore than I believe in Al Gore's, or the Day After Tomorrow sci-fi stories. It was rather impressive though of the Mayans to have such a great understanding of astronomy, with the sun at the center and the orbits of the planets understood; when it would be a couple of thousands of years until the Greeks came along and put the Earth at the center of the solar system (?). Western science didn't correct their mistake until when? oh around the time of Galileo.
Anyway you'll probably see natural disasters being used as data to support the 2012 theory, which will be similar, though not as professionally supported, as the AGW-cult.
Back to cars, remember Zap?
Zap Says It Has Order for 100 Electric SUVs (Green Car Advisor)
Of course, we won't see them.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/02/polar-bears-are- - -a-relatively-new-arrival-on-the-evolutionary-scene/1
That Zap looks like a hardtop Suzuki Samurai (which you probably had to have the disposition of a Kamikaze, to drive).
The global warming hoax is just another assault on car owners.
In Pat Buchanan's column this morning:
Today's global warming hysteria is the hoax of the 21st century. H.L. Mencken had it right: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
Regards, DQ
Wait - do you regularly read that column? That would be a fairly unusual thing to do. He's a....well, I could get really nasty listing his bad attributes, so I just won't do it.
Anyway, there is no such thing as an "anti-car" conspiracy by politicians.
There might a few "far left wackos" in Congress who are environmentally opposed to pollution and see cars as a possible way to address some of it, but as a general rule to say "politicians are assaulting car owners" is not on the mark.
There has not been a single piece of "anti-car" legislation passed in my lifetime, at least to my knowledge.
There have been "anti-pollution" rules and laws, and those are good for 100% of Americans, regardless of your political slant.
CARB has continually assaulted the industry. Remember the 1998 mandate for 10% EV with no real chance of that happening. The ethanol debacle is a direct threat to the auto industry. I would say we have a very large contingency of far left eco nuts in this country that would love to eliminate the automobile from all but the elites.
You have not been following this thread closely. The folks in Seattle are facing an infrastructure that is deteriorating fast. The local, state and Federal government do not want to encourage auto traffic by repairing or replacing needed roads. They have built mass transit with NO auto parking available. If that is not anti-car what is? They expect you to ride a bicycle in the rain to the mass transit.
My sister the Liberal UW professor has lived off and on in Seattle since the 1960s. She has never owned a car. Rides her bike rain or shine. She is probably part of the anti-car movement in Washington.
The whole AGW is based on the premise that we get rid of the Internal combustion engine. Says so in Egore's book.
Mayor McBicycle
Posted by Joni Balter
Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn made much of his bicycle riding prowess during the mayoral campaign. His supporters created a campaign issue about how he and other candidates traveled around town. The discussion about how politicians get to work seemed ridiculous to me and my column at the time captures how I feel.
Flash forward to McGinn now in office. He clearly believes in his anti-car, small carbon footprint stuff, enough to drive his security detail a tad crazy.
Eli Sanders at the Stranger explained that the small footprint part of the equation is bit off because as mayor, McGinn has a sizable SUV full of security riding behind him.
You know the next question,, don't you. Why not a Prius? Come on, Mr. Mayor. Couldn't you have a Prius or some other more environment-friendly vehicle in tow? The answer, apparently is, no.
Anti-Pollution = Anti-Car
then you are right.
But those agencies are first and foremost ANTI-POLLUTION.
They don't ONLY target CARS.
Show me an anti-car person who is NOT also ANTI-POLLUTION. You Cannot.
Funny about your sister. I have a friend my age in Seattle who doesn't own a car or bike. He doesn't even have a license and gets around fine. He'll bum a ride now and then but I know he goes weeks if not months without setting foot in a car.
As soon as I don't have two kids to haul around (7 more years) I might go non-car for a couple or three years just for the financial benefit.
That's $23,400 I could save not including interest.
But when your cars are as old as ours, it's nice to know you have wheels in case one doesn't start. But I guess Enterprise would pick me up. :shades:
I remember seeing a few Discovery shows, that showed that Seattle is in a very dangerous neighborhood, being between an active Mt. Rainier, and some nasty seismic faults just offshore. The residents may want to keep as much mobility as possible.
I hear what you are saying, but there's not much notice of earthquakes or even tornados. Fires, volcano eruptions and floods, maybe. I ran down six flights of a 7 story building in Anchorage during one quake (~6.8 iirc), and getting to my car wasn't on my agenda. :shades:
I looked up during the shaking and a Manufacturing Engineer named Rick that sat right by me was walking around in a daze. I shouted "Rick...get underneath your desk, right now!"
I had to say it twice to him, he didn't seem to hear me the first time. After whatever time frame that thing went on for was over (something like 50 seconds) we poked our heads up in a real daze and wondered if our building was OK. It was later inspected and it withstood it completely. It was built to withstand powerful quakes. The only problem was a few cracks in a few places in some concrete standards. Nothing that needed immediate attention, even.
Wow...the Company gave us all the rest of that day off, it was in Feb.2001 sometime. Little did we know what was to happen several months later in that year.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
You never know how your mind is going to work in a case of sudden unintended acceleration.
Tears could be seen on some faces but mostly it was this dazed and confused look, Boeing was smart to give us the rest of the day off. I don't remember if we lost power. I don't think so, and even if we did Boeing has a very reliable backup power generator they can put in to play.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
If the quake is offshore and the tsunami is 10 min away I'd rather drive up a hillside road, then try to run it (especially if you're 80, or have toddlers with you). If the volcanoes get noisy I'm driving as far away as I can get with as many supplies as I can put in the vehicle; then I'll be fresh if I need to go to a backpack and sneakers.
And don't get us started on the moderate advantages of a PU or true-SUV in these cases.
Reading about the Chile earthquake, which is just 1 form of the power of nature, I see where some islands off the Chile coast may have been pushed up 6 feet. This earthquake is another wonderful example of how natural forces dwarves humanity's minor efforts and effects.
Politicians are not necessarily anti-car per se but surely prey upon car manufacturers, dealers, and end users (read: drivers) because they are easy marks for an endless array of taxes and regulations. The latest outrage is the proliferation of red light cameras. The global warming issue is made to order for a connection to autos because autos use fossil fuel.
The huge positive contribution of the automobile to the lifestyle we enjoy is undeniable. We should continue to improve their efficiency and research all alternative options to push them down the highway.
Incidentally, unless you live in downtown Phoenix and don't travel widely, you might find expanding your geographical horizons by way of foot, bike, bus, or light rail somewhat challenging, especially in July.
Regards, DQ
Light rail goes through the center of town, and one block from my work.
I could view getting around "sans car" as a fun little challenge.
P.S. For past commuting, I've gone through a Segway and two electric bikes, none of which now are serviceable - so I might have to stick with Pedal Power only.....
If I had a viable alternative to my SUV (20 mpg).............., but alas I need to haul stuff and there is no PT anywhere near.
The US is far too large to support a viable mass transit system other than for tightly packed cities and for freight.
I would love to train it between Phoenix and Chicago but the train doesn't even go through Phoenix and the cost is prohibitive. Plane is cheaper if you don't bring much stuff with you.
Bottom line is: cars are here to stay and the sooner we remove the global warming hammer being used by the enviros to place costly and non productive burdens on car ownership, the sooner we can concentrate on really useful programs to improve the transportation landscape.
Regards, DQ
PS. Cars, Global Warming? Don't think so.
Snob On a Bus
Read her blog, too:
Snob On a Bus
THIS is a better indication of how "the average person who could afford a car but chooses to ride public transportation anyway" would fare using a mass transit system.
It's NOT the old stereotypical "buses are only for stinky old homeless/crazy people" like is was in the past.
Why People Don't Use Mass Transit
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/masstransit.htm
The Pros and Cons of Transit
We all talk about how great transit is and how we should all abandon our cars to take mass transit. But many of us do not. Why? Sometimes it’s because transit is not available. Sometimes it’s because it is inconvenient. A lot of times it’s because of the poor customer service/overall experience.
The last time I took Metrorail, the train was late, dirty, and packed full of people. One very large lady (I use the term loosely) shoved me and screamed that I needed to move further in (I was already touching the person in front of me), while someone else sneezed in my face. I then had to wait 15 minutes to change trains (they’re supposed to come every 6 minutes). I could have driven to my destination much faster, for about the same cost, and without the headache and future cold.
http://www.thegreenworkplace.com/2008/04/pros-and-cons-of-transit.html