What’s the End Game Plan?

As another Earth Hour passes it makes me think once again what’s the end game plan of the environmental movement. Earth Hour is billed as “a global call for action on climate change.” If it truly is a call for action wouldn’t these non-essential lights be extinguished the other 8,764.8 hours?

Speaking of getting rid of non-essential polluting; wouldn’t the only coffee baristas be located in Africa, Hawaii and other coffee producing countries if the end game plan was to save the planet? Why is the world creating a ton of supposedly earth ending pollutants just so you can get a kick of caffeine in the morning?

Is the end goal to have us live primitively? Well I’m against that. Is it for the earth the stay the same? The environment indicates otherwise.

Can you tell me what the end game plan is?

Meat Subsidies

All of a sudden I’m seeing articles claiming meat is getting a massive amount of subsidies and causing great harm to the environment. The problem is in researching the numbers behind the claims. It seems a whole lot of assumptions are being made to get to the number. The large amount of claimed subsidies don’t go to meat, but to soy and corn farmers, well as far as I can tell. The stretch they are doing is counting the subsidies that soy and corn farmers are receiving should be counted as subsidies to meat production.

I feel this stretch is not appropriate. For if we apply the logic to other venues of government subsidies we should get rid of public transportation. For instance many employees in the bay area utilize subsidized public transportation. Companies with a large presence in the bay area include the like of Cisco, Oracle, Autodesk and other high margin businesses in the bay area. Cisco has a gross profit margin of 68%, Oracle is at 82% and Autodesk is at 95%. Most agriculture operations would like to even come close to achieving these subsidies. Many of the articles I’ve read demonize Tyson Foods; yet they only have an 8.3% gross profit margin. BART received a subsidy of $318,212,902 for the last fiscal year (non-ridership revenue), the companies seam to hardly need the subsidies. The anti-meat crowd would have to decry these blatant subsidies based on their logic. Unfortunately I would say they wouldn’t agree with my logic in this case.

Another point is environmental damages. I would say Cisco, Oracle and Autodesk contribute greatly to global warming due to providing the tools to continue the use of power hungry data centers, personal computers and small computer devices. Another logical reason to get rid of the public transportation subsidies that benefit these companies. Maybe BART needs to check where everyone works and make people pay based on where they work. It would remove the subsidies.

I don’t mind people being against meat, they have that right to voice their opinion. I would like a little more truth in the claims. For if we added up all of the costs of what we do we’d quickly come to the conclusion that we shouldn’t do anything because it all causes environmental impacts and costs to the government.

Why Would I Want to Pay More?

Came across this pricing scheme at CVS. The “You Pay Price” is $3.29, it was $3.79 and it’s now $3.49. I’d prefer to pay the $3.29, but I wasn’t quite sure what price would have rang up.

The Myth of Water Scarcity – Developed Countries

I’m sure you’ve read an article on water scarcity, either online or in a newspaper or magazine. The article usually mentions that two thirds of the earth is covered in water, but only two percent is fresh water. The article was probably mentioning water shortages in a developed area in the world or a third world country. The main point of the article was probably focusing on the author’s position that there is a shortage of water. But is there a shortage of water? I’m going to go against the grain and say there is no shortage of water; only the lack of will to produce and supply the required water.

Take for example the central valley of California. Today the western portion of the valley is drying up, its main source of water dammed up, so to say, at the Sacramento River Delta. Successful environmental lawsuits have reduced the amount of water being pumped from the Delta to ten percent of what the system was designed for. This supposed water shortage is not caused by a lack of water, but a lack of wanting to allow water to be pumped further downstream and fierce opposition to a proposed canal in 1982. When the system was first built water was conveyed through the Delta. Water is discharged at the northern side of the Delta and then pumped out on the southern side of the Delta.

Back in 1982 it was proposed to finish the California Aqueduct by building a peripheral canal, moving water around the Delta, funded through bonds and requiring approval through a ballot initiative. Unfortunately, for Californians the United States as a whole, the measure was defeated. Today the peripheral canal is back on the drawing board with an estimated cost of $3 billion. There is no guarantee that peripheral canal will be built and the west side of the valley may go fallow due to a scarcity of water. The scarcity of water is not because there is a lack of it, only because there is a lack of will to provide the water. The central valley of California is important because it provides an estimated 25% of the United States food supply and large exporter to other countries.

Another example is the small community of San Simeon on the Central Coast of California. The seaside community has halted new home construction due to a lack of water. However the technology exists to provide as much water as the community requires. What the community lacks is the will to utilize the technology to provide the water. Why does the community not want to utilize the technology? Because a vocal portion does not want additional people moving into the town. For if the water is provided the empty lots located in the town would be allowed to be developed.Another example of not a water shortage problem, but a lack of will to provide the water.

If we take a look at most locations in the developed world I think you’d find the same thing. The claim of scarcity of water, but in reality the lack of will to provide the water a growing population requires to survive on this planet.

Next Apple Product: iWall?

Apple looks like its getting more transparent, while walking past the Apple Store in San Francisco I spied what must be their next product. I’m dubbing it the iWall. As you can see it comes with 3G and GPS and is quite a bit bigger than the iPad.

Not sure how portable it will be, but I’m sure it will be billed as the next must have product from Apple. No word yet on if it comes with Apple TV capabilities.

How Often Does This Happen?

Not quite sure what’s going on in San Jose for the gas pumps to require these signs.

Public Transportation

Yesterday I made my way from Arroyo Grande, CA (AG) to San Francisco, CA. The trip consisted of driving 218 miles from AG to the Fremont Bart Station, taking BART from the Fremont Station to the Montgomery Station and finally walking to the hotel I’m staying at. The public transportation, round trip, costs to me included $10 for long term parking, $11.20 for the BART ride and about three hours of my time (the difference between driving and taking public transportation). I did this to save the $46/day the hotel charged for overnight parking. So I saved $92.53 ($92+$21.73-$21.20), not including the money spent on printing the parking pass at FedEx Office or my time. I’ve read that the farebox recovery of BART is 58.4%, so the true cost of the trip is $19.18. Giving the total savings of $84.55. Since I’m adding 3 hours to my journey, I’m valuing my time at $28.18/hr. Google estimated my traveling costs at $21.73, based on the IRS tax deduction amount per mile.

Since my employer, and me sometimes, values my time at more than my savings per hour I probably should have driven to the hotel and paid for the parking.

All of this got me thinking on why isn’t public transportation better. I think it has everything to do with keeping the farebox recovery from coming even close to the 110% required to expand and grow the system organically. Due to the low farebox recovery rates public transportation is beholden to the government for funding expansions or providing better service. Budget priorities often delay or hinder the construction of system expansions. BART is currently in this situation because of the California budget problems. Its being forced to raise rates, or decrease service, due to cutbacks in the 41.6% of its budget that comes from gas tax money or the general fund.

If the farebox recovery rates covered the full cost of the trip BART would need to adjust fares based on ridership. If ridership goes up BART could choose between expanding service or reducing fares. If ridership goes down BART could adjust service to meet the current demand, by running trains less frequency. The true benefit of full farebox recovery is the ability to expand the system without requiring outside funds, except for issuing bonds to fund the construction. The tax payer would be relieved of having to pay for public transportation and the users of the system would have expanded service.

I guess the downfall of my idea is that a vocal portion of the public feels that people shouldn’t be forced to pay full fare for their trips. I just don’t get the logic in that. You force them into a bad public transportation system and limit their access to locations and places without providing a means for them to help improve their transportation options.

And if you are wondering I feel the gas taxes funding transportation projects should be inflation adjusted and meet all of the costs of maintaining and expanding the roadways.