Sacramento Needs To Make a Long Term Commitment to Cap-and-Trade

May 28th, 2016 | Posted by

Last week the California Air Resources Board held an auction of carbon emission permits under the cap-and-trade system established in 2006 by AB 32.

It did not go well.

Only about a tenth of the available pollution credits were sold in an auction last week, according to results released Wednesday by the California Air Resources Board. Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration says revenue from the program was $600 million short of the $2.4 billion anticipated in the current fiscal year…

California sold 6.1 million for current use, with all the revenue going to utilities, and 914,000 for future use, which netted the state only about $10 million.

Critics and opponents of cap-and-trade were gleeful at the failed auction, as it means a lot less money for high speed rail and other green infrastructure projects. HSR in particular is hoping to bond against long-term cap-and-trade revenues – but if those revenues don’t materialize, that effort becomes a lot harder.

Dan Walters, a longtime critic of cap-and-trade or high speed rail, seems to have the best explanation of what happened:

It could be a one-time adjustment, of course, but those who study the complex market believe that the underlying conditions are more systemic than situational, the most prominent being an increasing concern that the program will expire in 2020….

There’s a fierce, albeit mostly private, debate over whether the cap-and-trade system can legally exist after 2020, or would have to be reauthorized by the Legislature. Meanwhile, there’s a pending lawsuit, filed by business groups, that seeks to have the system branded a tax, which would require a two-thirds legislative vote….

Moreover, were reauthorization sought, it could run afoul of a 2010 ballot measure that tightened up the legal definitions of taxes and fees and therefore could be, politically, a nonstarter.

This explanation strikes me as the most likely reason for the failed auction. Cap-and-trade permits have value because over time, the number of permits is cut, making each remaining permit more important and thus more valuable.

But if the system goes away in four years, what’s the incentive for anyone to buy a permit now? Better to sit on the sidelines and see what happens, rather than buy a permit that may be worthless in the near future.

The state legislature needs to step up and pass legislation to ensure that cap-and-trade exists well beyond 2020. But that would likely require a 2/3 vote, and that’s going to be hard – even if Democrats retake a 2/3 majority in the legislature this year, as seems likely. (The California Republican Party is about to get nuked by a massive anti-Trump turnout in November.)

Thanks to the top two primary, the ranks of moderate Democrats have been growing, especially in the Assembly. Many of them are funded by oil companies, and those legislators memorably gutted legislation in 2015 that would have further slashed carbon emissions.

So even though Democrats are poised to retake the supermajority in the legislature, that doesn’t mean there would be a 2/3 majority for extending cap-and-trade beyond 2020.

You can see why potential permit buyers stayed on the sidelines this month.

This is a big problem not just for HSR or even cap-and-trade, but for the effort to fight the crisis that is global warming. AB 32 and the cap-and-trade system are still the only real, meaningful effort happening in the United States to tackle the climate crisis and cut carbon emissions. If we can’t reduce CO2 emissions because of a lack of political will in Sacramento – or because some legislators have been bought by oil companies – then the Golden State and maybe even the planet as a whole is in very deep trouble.

  1. Jerry
    May 28th, 2016 at 09:57
    #1

    Cap and Trade needs a Hero.

    Joe Reply:

    “Moderate Democrats” is an awful way to describe corporate funded and controlled democrats. They are, through inaction, radical.

    2015 was and 2016 is on track to be the warmest year ever experienced by the human species.

    There will be a scientific paper soon on the type of world that existed when [co2] was over 400ppm.

    The rate of co2 increase currently exceeds the rate during the Permian extinction.

    This do thing cannot last. Corporate control of the Leflislature and 2/3 majority have to end.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    America has a right wing and a far right party. Some people on what is considered the far left fringe of the Democratic Party are trying to introduce policies that are actually par for the course for some center right parties in Europe… High Speed Rail or Universal Health Care are among them. As is paid family leave.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    I thought that in Europe, Obama and Hillary are looked on as center left to center right, Bernie as center left, and nobody as far left.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Just one example: The equivalent of Obama-Care was proposed by the German FDP (basically the German libertarian party) – and compared to Obamacare it included more public sector input. And let’s not even get into the whole religion and flag waving thing…

    And yes Obama and Clinton would be seen as Centrists in Germany. At best they’d be seen as ever so slight left of center – mostly by uninformed people.

    Nathanael Reply:

    Obama and Hillary are considered center-right in most of Europe.

    Their policies are in almost every way to the right of the British Conservative Party, for example, though on economics they’re very slightly to the left of Merkel’s Christian Democrats.

    The Republican Party would be considered a far-right extremist party in Europe, and might actually be banned in Germany.

    Bernie is considered center-left, yes.

    Eric Reply:

    Europe is not representative of the world. In many ways, Europe leans to the left, East Asia to the right, and the US is in the center. For example in East Asia’s hyper-nationalism, suspicion of immigrants, and government sponsorship of key business.

    Ted Judah Reply:

    Although I’ve had that realization myself…it’s not really true.

    What you are really seeing is that individual achievement is less important, there is less of a need or desire for the welfare state. That doesn’t make for as clean a dichotomy…but it is more durable when you consider which pieces of Asia, North America, and Europe lean left or right.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    And where does Latin America “lean”? Socialism is par for the course there. On the other hand, they still have a strong catholic church that sometimes even gets involved in politics…

    Though US style crazy-churches are gaining ground throughout Latin America.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Savonarola was pretty crazy.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    People who think G*d is talking to them usually are.
    16 of the 17 candidates for the Republican nomination were apparently listening to someone else. They all said He wanted them to be President. And created the world 6,000 years ago…

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I am always wondering: What is worse? Honest faith in something patently absurd or faking faith in something patently absurd to curry favor with voters?

    Ted Judah Reply:

    One auction a successful future market does not make.

    Look at how low the return is on Treasuries at the moment. Bond markets (and those selling other forms of government debt) are much more volatile that the common man thinks.

    Oil is pretty cheap to import these days, especially to California. That’s because the West Coast has access to trade routes that serve the Middle East. We are much more susceptible, for example, to recent changes in production by Saudi Arabia than the rest of the US.

    But the current bounty won’t last forever, and if the pendulum swings the other way before 2020…C and T will look like a genius idea. And if not, it’s probably dead-on-arrival, unfortunately.

  2. Jerry
    May 28th, 2016 at 10:15
    #2

    In Fresno, Donald T., said, forget the drought and the California Delta Smelt.
    “They don’t understand it,” Trump said. “They here is no drought, they turn the water out into the ocean. ”
    The planets not in trouble. You’ all just don’t understand it.

    les Reply:

    Though I don’t agree with Hilary on many things (voting for the war, supporting H1B visas, NAFTA and etc), recently Trump has taken his wackiness to a whole new level. His statements about stripping the EPA, flooding the Supreme Court with far right judges and now this. The guy is a nut job.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Trump is a Reaganite roughly.

    CnT is a tax. Taxes and “long term” don’t sleep that well together – in a recession or a depression there will be a great temptation to lower taxes to stimulate the economy. And print money, with consequences over the “long term”.

    Finding funding to build JerryRail is followed immediately by finding funding to subsidize the operations serious red ink.

    “some legislators have been bought by oil companies” How about those who have been bought by the Tejon Ranch Co. and Palmdale real estate developers?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Yes he is. We’ve been cutting taxes on rich people for 35 years. They were supposed to go out and invest it all in productive enterprises making us all rich. We’re still waiting. In the mean time they’ve been busy putting their money in increasing risky investments. That we have to bail out when they collapse.
    … something has been trickling down and it’s not money.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Yep, there is another TARP waiting out there.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    One of the biggest steel companies in the world has its headquarters in South Korea. A country that has neither much coal nor much iron ore. Why? Because the government of South Korea – at a time when corruption ran rampant and it was in essence a military dictatorship – decided to start a heavy industry. Government can chose winners. And for that to work there have to be taxes. The only people who can afford low taxes are billionaires who don’t need public roads, public schools, public water lines, a police force or really any of the things states do.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Obama goes to Silicon Valley regularly to beg from these billionaires.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    which isn’t inherently a bad thing

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Oh yes money in politics is a very bad thing.

    It obviously has an effect, otherwise people would not spend it.

    And money in politics having an effect means that not every vote is equal.

    And if you don’t believe every vote should be equal, you do not believe in democracy.

    Mattie F. Reply:

    “in a recession or a depression there will be a great temptation to lower taxes to stimulate the economy”

    As cap-and-trade is a market-based mechanism, there is a built-in mechanism that tracks economic activity: During recessions, demand and use of oil products (for personal travel, power generation, or manufacturing) drops significantly, which will drop the price of cap-and-trade allowances.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    There is hardly a democratically elected politician I hate more than Reagan. But compared to Trump, Reagan was sane and reasonable. Trump is dangerous. And he is very obviously unpredictable.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    I know, nowadays, Reagan would be brushed off as a RINO, like far right Marco Rubio. It is insane.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Reagan was a latecomer McCarthyite. Trump is to the left of Reagan.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Reagan was right in the thick of it, before Senator McCarthy began waving lists around.

    When Trump is interviewed on MSNBC he has one position. Three hours later when he’s interviewed on Fox his position is different. And different the next day.

    les Reply:

    He’s a master manipulator of the media, i’ll give him that.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Trump shows that many negative qualities are only negative for a politician if he is ashamed of them. Flip-flopping being among them.

    Nathanael Reply:

    Actually, Trump is much saner than Reagan, which isn’t saying much, given than Reagan was actually clinically diagnosable with dementia.

    I think we forget some of the stuff Reagan did: magic asterisks, Iran-Contra, “We begin bombing in five minutes”, ketchup is a vegetable,…

    Trump is deliberately lying all the time. Reagan appears to have actually had Alzheimer’s while in office.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Republicans have had collective amnesia since the Nixon administration. Can’t remember anything about anything. Even when you show them the memo they forgot to shred.

  3. Mattie F.
    May 28th, 2016 at 12:57
    #3

    “(The California Republican Party is about to get nuked by a massive anti-Trump turnout in November.)”

    I’d suggest that in the absence of any Republican primary, the top-two primary might work in favor of Democrats, and thus cap-and-trade and high-speed-rail supporters. The California Republican Party might well be nuked on June 7th.

    Joe Reply:

    Top two in the case of progressive Mike Honda has him face and beat a corporate dem in the primary and have to face him again in the general election where republicans can help vote out the better democrat.

    It’s corporate and money friendly law. Political parties shoud not be interfered with. We only get two choices in a general election which is not democratic.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Most mayoral and several presidential elections in Europe work in this runoff fashion. I don’t think the top two primary is that bad. After all, you want the top guy to actually have a majority behind him. And you want to eliminate the very concept of “spoiler candidate”

    Joe Reply:

    Primaries are not elections for a public office.

    They are for a private political party to select a candidate. 1) only party registered voters should vote wirhin a party and 2) all parties should have a chance to be on the ballot in the general election.

    Spoiler candidates are good – it’s a democracy. People should have a chance to split off. Spoil what ? A rubber stamp and shoe-in candidates.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    Political parties aren’t governmental organizations. They choose to operate by ballot, but they are by no means obligated to. They are essentially clubs or organizations, like the boys and girls club or business councils, and their nomination is simply an endorsement.

    What I wish is that we could get a functioning government and adopt a parliamentary system, giving the parties power, so then we would have 4-6 major parties that would be forced to form coalitions to find ways to get along and get things done, while discouraging extremist, fringe, antiestablishment canidates from winning (we don’t want another Trump).

    Nathanael Reply:

    Proportional representation! If we had proportional representation we’d have a chance for a party like Podemos to arise and take power peacefully. (Spain has proportional representation.)

    Single-member first-past-the-post districts is a bad system because it creates a two-party system, due to Duverger’s law. It gets worse when the districts are gerrymandered.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Your proposed system is the forever two party system from here on to the end of times. Which does not serve anybody.

    Two party systems depress turnout, leave a huge part of the population unrepresented and produce horrible results if one (or both) parties are corrupt. In a representative system one corrupt party can falter and give way to a new party with a similar ideology without fucking everything up. And in the absence of representative elections runoffs are a good thing. Just look at the recent presidential election in Austria…

    synonymouse Reply:

    We have a one party system in California.

    In re Ca. US Senate seat you figuratively have the choice between Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton.

    joe Reply:

    Mine allows multiple candidates on a ballot. Top two suppresses choice.

    Nominating representative people, extreme in the eyes of others, allows a party to test ideas and change if they lose badly.

    GOP needs to jettison kooks like synonymouse. They lose and lose and lose but stick around due to 2/3 vote requirement for revenue. 1/3 have power and stick around like zombies.

    GOP can build a vibrant party based on reality – actual people’s interests. eliminate 2/3 rule, eliminate top two and let parties nominate within.

    J. Wong Reply:

    With the top 2 primaries in California it has tended to moderate the candidates and the Legislature. Party nominations are only favored by extremists of either party. California led the nation in dysfunctional government before top 2 was instituted. Restore party primaries and get a do nothing legislature. (Admittedly, the redistricting reforms put in place at the same time as top 2 also works to avoid gerrymandering and the extremism that resulted from that.)

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Is there any law that says the US cannot ever have one state with a proportional system and a directly elected Governor who has to go into a runoff?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Louisiana has runoff elections. If no one gets 50 percent the top two have a runoff.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Does Louisiana elect its Lower House on a statewide system? i.e. You vote for somebody or a party and if they get enough votes they get represented according to their vote. No gerrymandering, no fuzz no problems…

    Nathanael Reply:

    Any state could change its state Constitution to have proportional representation, or a parliamentary system, or approval voting. Or a unicameral legislature (see Nebraska). These are all excellent ideas.

    It’s just very difficult to get voters to pay enough attention to *care* enough to actually make such a change.

    Joe Reply:

    Prop25 fixed our state.

    We had a 2/3 majority rule for budgets and prop25 made it simple majority.
    If we pass simple majority for revenue we’d have an even more functional government..

    Extreme candidates is propaganda.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Why should something that has it’s point one percent of support centered around a certain area have more power than something that has its five percent support spread out around the whole country?

    First past the post makes no bloody sense.

    Nathanael Reply:

    It sure doesn’t, but it’s been hard to get enough Americans to (a) understand the issue, and (b) care about it, so we haven’t been able to change it.

    I’ve been advocating for electoral reform (proportional representation) for at least 30 years, but it’s very hard to get anyone to listen.

    That’s actually changing recently, probably because the first-past-the-post gerrymandered system is clearly totally failing the country.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    is there even much of a CA GOP anymore?

    Aarond Reply:

    Of course they are, though the state party politburo is a total disaster. The people running it are all Reagan era neocons who play up to a small base of rich executives and evangelicals. Most Republicans in California are Tea Partiers, who are at odds with them over the direction of the party. It’s why the SOJ51 thing is a thing: because Republicans upstate think making their own state would be easier than convincing an LA area (no offense) party to listen to them.

    The party can’t decide if it wants to be nativist and evangelical, or libertarian. They’re just *supposedly* against taxes and illegal immigration (but not really with the latter, since it would piss off farmers). Imagine a headless zombie, not dead but still alive. In limbo. Even the DC House GOP managed to give themselves a direction (however backwards and stupid it is).

    It might not seem obvious from the outside, though.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The Tea Party and the Establishment Republicans are both gripped by the deep fear that someone somewhere is having fun. Instead of making money. They are both deeply suspicious of people who make money while having fun.
    The difference between the Tea Partiers and the establishment Republicans is that the establishment knows the Tea Party is being ****** without any lube. The Tea Party asks for more as long as it is wrapped in a flag.

    JimInPollockPines Reply:

    I have a feeling trump will win, unless the republican party actually doesn’t want him to win. If they really do want him to win, and they back him fully, as devious and underhanded as they play, it doesn’t look good. Plus we have to count on liberals to show up and right now, that doesn’t look good either. We may see the classic example of democrats snatching defeat from the claws of victory. A lot of people want to believe trump the way the belived Reagan. The democrats better get their shit together good and fast because im telling you….its no joke. Democrats had better not waste the next 5 months screwing around.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    He’s got five months to demonstrate he’s a male Sarah Palin. At least, some of the time anyway, he manages to speak in whole sentences. And then contradict himself within hours.

    JimInPollockPines Reply:

    Yeh but its not just about trump, its that people seem really unhappy ( I don’t know what everyone is unhappy about because the economy is doing well and the housing market has recovered) but americans are super cranky and fed up. And looking at the interactive election map.. Florida is critical for Hillary. compared to the 2012 map, I think we are going to lose these to the reds…Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Ohio and North Carolina. So pensylvania and florida are critical mist wins. Don’t underestimate how little people care about trumps blunders and political incorrect statements. EVen out west, I am the only person in northern California with a Hillary bumper sticker but the humpty trumpy signs abound.
    I don’t actually see trump as the problem so much as I see his supporters being a huge problem for America.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    I don’t see Trump winning. Honestly, its best for his party if he loses. Hillary just needs to win either OH, FL, or PA, plus all the blue states, whereas Trump has to win OH and PA, OH and FL, or PA and FL, along with the red states. I feel like the map might change, with the rustbelt getting redder, but North Carolina going for Hillary, and Colorado and Nevada becoming safe blue states. I almost feel like this year is going to be a battle between disenfranchised America (Midwest, Appalacia and Deep South, represented by Trump) and enfranchised America (the coasts.) I think Hillary will win, at least in the electoral college. I think she has a sold base to carry her to victory (she has gotten more votes in the primaries than anyone else), but because her supporters are fairly establishment, they aren’t as outspoken as the fired up Trump and Bernie supporters. For instance, I feel like I’m the only person in Southern California with a Hillary t-shirt, but I think she will still take LA county, with the not fanatical support of people satisfied with current America.

    JimInPollockPines Reply:

    I think north Carolina will go red because they are mad about the bathroom thing so they’ll be like “were tired of this liberal blah blah being shoved down our throats” etc. Trumps job message will play well in ohio. Wisconsin arealdy gave us scott walker so we cant count on them anymore. Colorado, iffy, lots of white people. Nevada has to count on the southern Nevada union turn out or they will go red. and that god forsaken place known as florida, who the hell knows what they’ll do or if they will even manage to orchestrate an election day. No im remaining 100 worried until November 3rd.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The bat shit insane people are riled up about bathrooms. The rest of the people in North Carolina not so much. It’s too bad they don’t show up for state elections.

    Aarond Reply:

    The problem is that OH, FL and PA are all dominated by Republicans at the moment. Rick Scott has already endorsed Trump while Kaisch probably will at the convention. This leaves PA’s 20 delegates, where Trump and Clinton are about tied. Regardless, MI (with a full GOP govt) has 16 delegates, and WI (also GOP) 10.

    Everything about this suggests either a tight race (like 2000) or a 1980-style Republican sweep. All depends on how Hilary treats Sanders at the convention, and who she picks for veep.

    She wants to rely on the Silent Majority, which is a perfectly reasonable strategy. But silent people don’t always turn out, especially in swing states. If she drops the torch in philly then progressive-heavy states like Oregon or Vermont could come into play as well.

    JimInPollockPines Reply:

    just remember the republicans have no shame, no empathy, and are not ever concerned about peoples “feelings.” So while the democrats are wringing their hands over fairness and thworing pixie dust at each other, the republicans are getting ready to go for the throat. There is no time to waste. Dems need to step up and get the job done and not just skate by either. There needs to be a stomping.

    Aarond Reply:

    @JimInPollockPines:

    I agree completely. But if Hilary isn’t fair to Sanders supporters, they won’t turn out and many will go for the “bern it down” option.

    The big choices left are veep picks, and Hilary/Sanders has the best mileage (short of an actual Sanders nomination) since Sanders does well with moderates, unaffiliated and independent voters. Hilary needs to unify the party and not exacerbate the split.

    Look at what happened at the Nevada convention, that was a textbook case of what NOT to do (specifically, having Californian Senators chair a convention that isn’t California’s). If something like that happens in Philly it will be 1980 again in November.

    JimInPollockPines Reply:

    Well if sanders supporters allow trump to win they better remember that, being mostly younger, its their future they are screwing up by allowing the republicans to appoint up to 3 supreme court justices. That’s a hole that Bernie supporters will dig for themselves that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

    Aarond Reply:

    That’s true about SCOTUS justices, but on the ground the discontent with the Dem establishment has led to more immediate problems in downballot races (especially, outside of CA). Having Hilary at the helm won’t improve this situation.

    She needs to build a bridge, or else the radical left and progressive left will instigate a GOP-style insurrection in the party (which worked for the GOP in 2010, the party evolved their platform. Not in a way we agree with, but one which got votes).

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    @Aarond. There is absolutely no way, whatsoever, that Oregon goes for Trump. I grew up there, my parents live there–Bernie is popular there, but Hillary is also popular. Oregon was never much of a Trump state anyway (he won it, but only because Cruz and Kasich dropped out–much of the state’s GOP supported Kasich, and most rural areas supported Cruz.) Personally, my bet is on the Larry Sabato Crystal Ball prediction, which gives Clinton 347 electoral votes, and Trump 191 electoral votes.

    In this prediction, which I consider very likely, the breakdown is:
    Safe DEM: 190 votes–WA, OR, CA, HI, NM, IL, ME-1 VT, NY, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE, MD, DC
    Likely DEM: 57 votes–MN, WI, MI, PA, ME-2
    Leans DEM: 100 votes–NV, CO, IA, OH, NH, VA, NC, FL
    Toss up: 0 votes
    Leans GOP: 1 vote: NE-2
    Likely GOP: 48 votes: AZ, MO, IN, GA
    Safe GOP: 142 votes: AK, ID, UT, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE-1&3, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, KY, TN, MS, AL, SC, WV

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Utahans are bit tetchy about demagogues that have religious discrimination as a major plank. this morning anyway, check back tomorrow.

    Jerry Reply:

    @Joe “original birth certificate to register” ? ?
    How about original birth certificate to use rest room? ?

    Nathanael Reply:

    Car-free-LA: your predicted breakdown is pretty good. HOWEVER.

    I’e been watching the polls. I think Trump wins NV, CO, OH, NC, FL — they should be in the “Leans GOP” column. He’s also pretty likely to win IA.

    Trump will not win NH, I’d call that “Likely Dem”.
    This puts only VA in the “Leans Dem” column.

    Hillary still wins in this scenario, but it’s very close. If Trump manages to somehow steal Michigan or Wisconsin…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The yokels out in the hinterlands have been unhappy since FDR was elected. And as a percentage of the population there’s less and less of them every year.

    JimInPollockPines Reply:

    Seems like there are more. But maybe they are just more rabid.

    Aarond Reply:

    They vote though. That’s the key thing. They turn out for every election. Democrats may have the numbers but it doesn’t matter if they don’t vote. Yokels aren’t a problem insomuch as it is blue collar workers, if their Unions get wrecked by Right-To-Work laws and can’t campaign as good, then the ability for the Democrats to get out the vote suffers significantly.

    Also, if the Democrats can’t get blue collar types to vote for them then they loose swing states. This is where Hilary’s connections to TPP (through Obama) and NAFTA (through her husband) become an issue. And this year they have an alternative that is speaking directly to them.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    For the left wing to win turnout has to be high.

    How does a left wing person guarantee a high turnout?

    By creating excitement.

    No working poor person will take a day off of work for someone who is incrementally less bad. But they will for a fifteen buck minimum wage, for paid vacation, for public health care and for all those wacky socialist ideas…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    They might have to take the day off in states that like to suppress the vote.
    In New York the polls are open from 6AM to 9PM. Most states they are open at least 11 hours.
    In New York, if there are ten people in line ahead of you, you picked a time when it’s really really busy.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well thanks to the weird voter registration thing (hardly any advanced democracy does it this ass backwards way) you will have to spend a couple of hours to register and than another couple of hours to vote…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    It took me 15 seconds to register to vote. I had to check off the box for my party designation. Total time, since it’s a box that gets checked while you are getting a drivers license/nondriving I.D., was ten minutes. The DMV experience in Manhattan is a bit more Soviet Union, it can take a half hour to see a clerk. I’ve never had more than ten or twelve people ahead of me when I went to vote. School board elections can be a bit more chaotic. Mostly because they are too cheap to hire experienced people.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    And in other states it takes days. And in some places they just “happen to” close the offices serving poor people and/or minorities…

    And that’s not even getting into people who don’t own a car

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIGhSo7zMVg

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Name 1 state where it takes days to register to vote.

    The truth is that there is a disproportionately higher number of poor who don’t register/vote regardless of method. You can’t force people to care

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well there are places on this earth that have had democratic elections with 80 or 90 percent turnout. Some of them have mandatory voting, some don’t. Personally I think a negative poll tax (payable when voting) might be a good idea. You get a small sum of money when you vote. The only possible downside I can see in that is the problem of voter fraud, but the Republicans have already found ways to counter that, haven’t they?

    Joe Reply:

    WASP questions voter suppression.

    Barriers are everywhere.

    Took the day off to get government Pre clearance for travel. Bring current passport, state issued drivers license and pre filled paperwork via internet. Made appt using Internet and drive to Stockton.
    Pay 85.00.

    Poor people can’t do this. Conservatives say they are too busy watching flat screen tv, chatting on smart phone while eating steaks.

    Simply requiring an original birth certificate to register can take days assuming they aren’t lost by county and don’t require catch22 paperwork run around.

    Jerry Reply:

    @Joe “original birth certificate to register” ? ?
    How about original birth certificate to use rest room? ?

    Aarond Reply:

    @Jerry

    In the future ll California-Compliant plumbing apparatuses must have Drought Safety Act electronic access features, which require the user to swipe their government-issued ID before operation. Except the ones inside BART stations, because they’re all broken.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Poor people can’t afford to travel places where they need paperwork. Other than their bus card.

    Jerry Reply:

    Most political systems incude some type of “vote “.
    However, the complexities the total issues are beyond the understanding of most “voters”.
    Thus, most votes are cast on an emotional basis. As are most decisions in life.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The solution to uninformed voters is not voter suppression but informing voters.

    joe Reply:

    Poor people can’t afford to travel places where they need paperwork.

    How observant. You just debunked Ellis Island. All a scam like the moon landing.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    AH yes there are hordes of nearly destitute Californian yearning to see Latvia.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Travel =/= immigration. If getting on that boat (or plane) is your one shot at a better live, you will work your ass of and sell your house to get on it. If getting on that boat means two nice weeks of vacation, you won’t even spend a year’s salary on it.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Still didn’t see an example of a state that takes days to register. You missed that.

    Mandatory voting is an interesting concept. You are free, but not free to not vote. Or paying (bribing) them to vote. Has it occurred to you that having uninformed people vote just to collect money might not lead to excellent votes?

    If people want to resister and vote they have every opportunity. The problem is people don’t give a f$!?. It’s not a new problem, it’s been that way for decades if not centuries.

    StevieB Reply:

    Australia has compulsory voting with a reported 94% registered voter turnout in the last federal election. Australia election: Why is voting compulsory?

    Nathanael Reply:

    “John Nachtigall Reply:
    May 31st, 2016 at 6:23 am

    Name 1 state where it takes days to register to vote. ”

    Wisconsin. Their so-called “voter ID” law is designed to make it impossible for large numbers of people to register to vote.

    Nathanael Reply:

    The problem is specifically that the election is won or lost in the states where they *are* making it as difficult as possible to vote.

    Trivial to vote in NY or California, but in Ohio! Oh boy.

    Nathanael Reply:

    “americans are super cranky and fed up.”

    Because real wages haven’t risen since 1980. The top 0.1% has taken basically all the economic gains for the last 40 years.

    Also because things which are *really really really popular*, like marijuana legalization, are not happening because our government does not represent the people.

    Also because things which are *really really really unpopular*, like the TPP or the Iraq War, keep happening because our government does not represent the people.

    It’s really a classic political tinderkeg setup: a blatantly unrepresentative government ignoring the desires of the people, and then the people get economically crushed.

  4. morris brown
    May 28th, 2016 at 17:58
    #4

    Robert wrote:

    This is a big problem not just for HSR or even cap-and-trade, but for the effort to fight the crisis that is global warming. AB 32 and the cap-and-trade system are still the only real, meaningful effort happening in the United States to tackle the climate crisis and cut carbon emissions.

    Of course, diverting 25% of Cap and Trade towards HSR is not fighting global warming or elimination of GHG at the present time. HSR will be a signification polluter during construction; won’t start service before 2025, and won’t possibly become even overall GHG neutral until late into this century, assuming it ever gets built.

    At the May 24th Senate Budget committee hearing, held 2 days before the results of the May auction were held, another discussion on the whole issue of whether the present Cap and Trade funding is legal or not became an issue.

    see:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsrS9q3-WFM 9 minutes.

    Here Senator Nielsen (R) again, brings up the issue, and Senator Steve Glazer (D) follows on with trying to get the Governor’s representative to tell the committee, what happens if the Lawsuit, currently in the appeals court goes against the Governor. Glazer wants to know how much liability the Legislature might be assessed if the Appeals court rules against the Governor. He finally seems to get the answer, which might be as much as $4 billion.

    The Leg Counsel legal opinion mentioned by Nielsen, which was negative on legality of present Cap and Trade can be viewed at:

    http://cssrc.us/content/implementation-california-global-warming-solutions-act-2006

    Joe Reply:

    HSR will be a signification polluter during construction; won’t start service before 2025, and won’t possibly become even overall GHG neutral until late into this century, assuming it ever gets built.

    First HSR is planting trees to offset construction emissions. Facts you don’t like get ignored.
    Second, changing transportation is a critical step in long term emission reduction.

    More Highway construction and repair, the alternative, are not planting trees nor do roads last as long as rail.

    What’semission rate of the Caltrain row built 160 years ago to highways ?
    More roads or HSR.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Currently transportation is the sector that has the lowest share of renewable energy. Which makes it the best place to cut GHG emissions. And HSR is a tremendous way of doing that.

    Robert Cruickshank Reply:

    What you’re saying is that long-term CO2 emission reductions don’t matter to you. That’s ridiculous.

    It does no good to cut emissions now only if they rise again in future decades.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Prices for wind, PV and batteries can’t drop forever.
    They can drop enough that they are cheaper than burning dinosaurs.

    Joe Reply:

    Experts say we need to transform our transportation system and electric rail is part of the change.

    Electric cars in Cali have access to carpool lanes. It’s not clear they are the answer. Remove the incentive and subsidy and gasoline cars have range and cost advantages.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Had range and cost advantages.

    joe Reply:

    See, you run away from specifics because you’re just being argumentative.

    best range is a $80,000 Tesla and specialized charging system ($$) beyond 220 volt for a whopping 265 miles range.

    My electric hybrid takes 7-8 hours to charge and goes 21 miles tops. Keep the heater off and use seat warmers and no AC to make this range. Drive 55 to extend range and regenerative break.

    Spend a few grand and get a 220 volt for 3x charge rate in a garage – you need a garage.
    Now that’s 60-70 miles on a charge.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Tesla 3 is supposed to be $35,000 before incentives. With incentives it’s cheaper than the median new car. It’s supposed to have 200 mile range. Chevy Bolt is supposed to $37,500 before incentives and have a 200 mile range. Electric cars were too expensive when the batteries cost $400 a kW. Batteries don’t cost $400 a kW anymore. Just a few months ago the consensus in the automotive press was that electric cars would be competitive in 2020-2022 when battery costs dropped below $200 per kW. LG Chem is suppling G.M. for $145. Range and cost disadvantages were a problem last year.
    …. the problem electric cars are going to face is the supply of cobalt.

    joe Reply:

    You wrote “Had”.

    I’m optimistic they’ll be part of a solution and agree with your math and optimism BUT the range under actual conditions is TBD.

    Cost still and equally sized gasoline auto like a Mazda 3 or Prius’16 which is over 50 on CR tests.

    Need a garage and special hook up and very consistent charging habits.

    If you get carpool access it’s worth it -if not then it’s not such a compelling choice.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    In 2015 internal combustion powered cars had a range and cost advantage. It’s almost disappeared with the 2017 models. With current incentives, it has disappeared. You needed a garage in 1998. You don’t anymore. Cover my employer’s parking lot with PV and on sunny days in the dead of winter I can keep the car topped up. 200 mile range on both cars and I only need one EVSE at the house.

    joe Reply:

    Sounds great – we don’t have that capability in California because the too few charging stations fill with too many employees needing to charge.

    Fantastic you work where the employers provides a dedicated charging spot for each employee all with PV energy.

    Gilroy Tesla charging stations are all used right now with a wait.
    I’m sure NY stations will always be available.

    Mazda 3 or Prius are less expensive and go further than real-soon-now electric cars even proimse under ideal conditions. Don’t see Bolt beating them. Incentives are for only a limited number per model and then end.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    ….giving things away for free tends to cause over consumption…

    Battery prices can’t drop forever. They just took a dive. People are still scurrying around recalibrating their predictions.
    PV prices can’t drop forever either. 200 mile range on my car I don’t have to charge it from empty to full everyday. The smart grid can dump excess wind into my car the day before a two day heat wave. Or cold snap. And instead of topping my car up at work it can go to 76% and all of the PV can go into the grid during the peak. Well it would go to my employer who can use it to cut their peak demand charges. Reclaim some parking spaces or some lawn and there can be huge battery that charges up on the weekend.
    They aren’t going to stop production of internal combustion cars over night. Plenty of time to install a NEMA 14-50 outlet next to my driveway and plenty of time for someone to design the pre-fab parking lot modules that make it cheap enough to charge my car at work.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    There should be some incentive to put solar panels on parking. It’s the definition of self evident. Parking is wasted space regardless. Everybody likes to park in the shade. Solar panels convert sunlight into energy.

    The only debate should be how this is done. Either via a mandate, a tax, a fee-in tariff, a subsidy or magic fairy dust. But the idea should be pursued.

    joe Reply:

    ….giving things away for free tends to cause over consumption…

    So your employer does or doesn’t have available charging stations? You tell me wonderful hypothetical things and then you argue the opposite.

    One might consult an app that shows charging station availability so one might pontificate from knowledge. I haz multiple ones. What’s the availability near Santa Clara/MTV googleplex/MS HQ? Stanford?

    The for fee service charging stations in my town are next to Telsa’s and also fill up on weekends.
    Maybe you’ll buy one someday and then tell us how well it works.

    Sure take a one hour break to drive to a station and charge your car. That’s a 21st century innovation.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    While my co-workers who visit customer use their car during their work day, I don’t. The cord on my telephone isn’t long enough to reach out to the parking lot for one.

    Who said it was going to be free? who said my employer would be installing anything or even owning it? The solar power company, the electric utility, me and my employer can come to an arrangement that works out well for all of us. I charge the car when there is excess wind or excess PV and I don’t charge the car when there isn’t. Occasionally, on high demand days, the car sells some back to the grid during the peak.

    joe Reply:

    Cute. Seems like you haven’t figured out our future.

    Public systems in MTView are free (3) and others cost money (10).
    Not enough.

    Private property – Whole Foods on El Camino Real has a few NRG in the basement. The sign says I have to shop there. So I join a few charging systems and pay a fee.

    Can I go you your employee parking lot and use it? I think not! A 3rd party would have to have some incentive to provide your employee parking lot with many charging stations. Don’t see that working out well. It’s a perk and not to many of them.

    If my car sells power back then how to tell my car I’m going to travel and need that power so don’t sell it? Seems really really complicated.

    Install a Type 2 and you’ll need to upgrade power line to home, and circuit breaker in most cases.

    If California dropped the car pool access sales would, IMHO, tank. don;t see off site charging sclaing too well. Just too expensive to install so they’ll require cost recovery beyond electricity costs and I can’t see more than a dozen or three stations per parking lot.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I really am no believer in the “modern IT will solve all problems the world has ever had” line, but the problem with the cars being charged or decharged seems to be one of those problems that can indeed be solved by that.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Solar prices won’t drop forever. They are dropping. If my car is parked for 9 hours it doesn’t need fast charging. If it has a 200 mile range I need fast charging once or twice a year. Some years.

    They can sell me 15kW a day for less than what it costs them to make it, they’ll sell it to me.
    The utility wants to shove excess wind into my car battery at 4 AM and buy it back from me at 4PM the peak premium can go to the people who own the collector and charge stations in my employer’s parking lot. Sunday morning when nobody is using much, the heat pumps can dump heat into the ground loop. Part of deal can be three spaces for the public/visitors near the curb for fast charging. it’s as win-win-win-win-win for everybody.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Plus the US has never had qualms to make unfunded mandates when it comes to parking.

    So the US could really just put an unfunded mandate in to force employers to put charging stations on their parking.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Electric cars are still much less efficient than electric trains.

    synonymouse Reply:

    But no Amalgamated chauffeurs etc.:

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/05/24/some-bart-workers-make-almost-3-times-their-salaries-in-overtime-pay/

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    We still need something for the places few people want to go to at times not many people want to go there. It’s more efficient than burning things under the hood. Some of the 2017 models are competitive when it comes to range and cost.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well yes, but the places nobody wants to go to are places nobody wants to go to for a reason. Nobody wants to go there.

    And for the space between stations there are always bikes. Some of them have electric assistance nowadays…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Go ahead, bicycle from WItchita to Dodge City.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    I realize this is a difficult concept for you to apparently grasp, but the USA is very large with very low density. Denver is not within 600 miles of another city that is a million people.

    Germany has the same land area as 1 state (Montana). You can’t just flippantly declare that THE ENTIRE MIDDLE PART OF THE USA is not worth going to.

    Electric cars work great is CA, which is why more that 1/2 are registered here. They work for shit in northern and western states where it is cold and there are long distances. The batteries lose effectivity in the cold (science, go figure) and most people don’t want a 600 mile trip to take 3 days with recharging. Key word being people…actual citizens who deserve transportation.

    But the US solved this problem with the interstate highway system, and it worked. Thanks for playing.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    The USA solved the problem in its sparsely populated center. On the west and east coasts, interstates are not capable of serving travel needs, people can bike between stations, and transit can work fairly well which is why we need HSR. Perhaps bikes an trains wont work for the Great Plains, but the majority of America’s population and trips are in a handful of coastal metropolises where transit and bikes can and do work better than interstates.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Batteries get warm when you charge or discharge them.
    People don’t take 600 miles drives very often. I don’t know about you but I have to stop every 125-150 miles. An extra 20 minutes at each pit stop to charge the car adds an hour and a half to a 600 mile trip. Though one of them would be longer than that at lunchtime. So it would add an hour. Not that I would even consider driving 600 miles in one day.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The amount of people who have to live in backofbeyondistan is very very low. And even in the great big nothingness of fly over country (Hey, it’s not me who says people should fly over it, in fact taking a train through it is on my bucket list) there are those newfangled things we call cities. You know, those places where people live close to one another because that is what humans haven always done since the beginning of civilization around the time Young Earth Creationists think the world was created…

    Of course people have a right to live on a cabin in the woods. But people have no right to expect the government to give every comfort of city live to their cabin in the woods. It is high time that the cities – aka the places that made America what it is – get back the political process and show the highway and airplane lobby the door. Even places like Omaha or Kansas City can be served perfectly fine by transit as we had established earlier. So why aren’t they? Because there is a fossil-industrial complex that has a huge amount of influence on politics. It’s called capitalism. The government is very close to the Committee of the owners of the means of production Marx said it would be in capitalism. The day you can make more money with not-oil will be the day you see not-oil become public policy.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Just because there is a dot on the map doesn’t mean there are a lot of people there.
    It means there is a dot on the map.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Do I have to do boring population density calculations for Omaha all over again?

    And yes, a dot on a map in and of itself is nothing but a dot on a map. And in some cases it is precisely and only that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatosu_and_Goblu

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    There’s less than a million people in metro Omaha. There’s little if any congestion, parking is free and cars are cheap. Even in what were streetcar suburbs.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    You seem to consider a city of almost a million “too small for transit”. I am of a different opinion. Cities of half a million are perfectly capable of having a very vibrant and well oiled transit network. In fact Nuremberg (a city of half a million or less) has three metro lines in addition to its light rail lines. Of course that’s all an evil European conspiracy to make people hate cars and vote socialist (The mayor of Nuremberg is indeed a dangerous red). And I cannot really judge Nuremberg congestion because I have hardly ever been there during rush hour, but the people I know who drive prefer not to when there…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Hey yeah, let’s all live in cities. Question? Who is going to grow all the food? Cows and Chickens?

    Omaha has transit, the are called buses.

    But again you changed the point. The point was trains are not a good intercity method of transit in the middle of the US. I am sure Nuremberg has great trains to other cities. How far away are they? Because if we out 80 million people in Montana then trains between the cities would be one option. But that is not the case.

    I get that you don’t care about the flyover people, but in this republic, they have rights just like the people on the coasts

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    How much parking is there in Nuremburg and how much of it is free? How much does fuel cost in Germany?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Fürth and Erlangen both share an administrative border with Nuremberg. Both have roughly a hundred thousand people. However, there is a lot of nobody between Nuremberg and Erlangen. On the other hand “city border” is an actual stop on the Nuremberg Metro before it goes to Fürth. Of course Erlangen, Nuremberg and Fürth are served by an S-Bahn, that also serves further away places like Bamberg (which is a lovely town). The next cities of comparable size are Leipzig to the North, Munich to the South and Frankfurt to the West all a couple of hundred kilometers away. There are flights NUE-FRA but none from Nuremberg to the other cities. To the East the connection to Prague is in an incredibly sorry state and Deutsche Bahn actually offers a bus that is faster than their own trains.

    There is free parking in Nuremberg, though most of it not downtown but for the details I am the wrong person to ask. Fuel costs oscillate somewhere between 1€ and 2€ per liter depending mostly on the world market price of oil. Fuel taxes have not been raised since Merkel took over in 2005. A toll is currently being debated, but according to the stated intention of the only proponent – the Bavarian CSU – it is designed to be cost neutral for Germans and only hurt foreigners using German roads.

    And I am sorry, but buses are to true urban rapid transit what the Gemini program is to Apollo. Denver and Salt Lake City prove that even in the great big nowhere between the coasts that we liberal elites like flying over cities can have public transit. Even if they are headquarters to wacky religions like the Mormons. And numerous German cities of half a million show that 99% car mode share are no law of nature for cities of that size. And if you have ever been to Nuremberg, Leipzig, Dresden, or other cities of that size that have public transit, you might appreciate their charm, especially compared to cities of the same size that don’t. Just like I can appreciate it for Managua compared to Berlin.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Nobody has said Denver or Salt Lake City are nowhere. It’s the hundreds and hundreds of miles of barely populated rural areas between them that’s the problem. The other problem is that they aren’t particularly big, If you got Japanese levels of rail travel between them there might be two trains an hour at peak and 15 a day. Utah isn’t Japan. Neither is Colorado.
    You can build 600 miles of track between Kansas City and Denver. Or 250 miles of track between Kansas City and Saint Louis. Chicago is closer than Denver, Indianapolis is closer than Denver, Memphis is closer than Denver. Nashville is closer than Denver. Cincinnati and Milwaukee are a bit farther.

    Jerry Reply:

    Is there a Denver HSR blog?
    Talking about HSR for Denver seems to be an exercise in futility.
    Especially when you consider the many many obstacles in getting HSR built and running in California.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Once CAHSR is up and running many many states will want their own HSR.

    Maybe even Colorado.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    There’s no place close enough to Colorado. For the umpteenth time.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    There are better places to build HSR. Granted.

    But Colorado is not too far away from everything to ever make HSR a possibility ever. Just like HSR in Britain France or Germany makes more sense in Norway doesn’t mean it makes no sense in Norway. The same can be said for the US.

    Steven H Reply:

    Montana is very big, therefore no one in New York City should ride electric trains. In other news, approximately 143% of the world’s Irish population lives in America; and 180% of Americans live in Denver, Kansas City, and the Applebee’s out on Route 12.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The only place worse would be Fairbanks to Anchorage.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well we might get a Veep once who wants the federal government to pony up the money for some Fairbanks to Anchorage shit….

    Nathanael Reply:

    Teslas work great in North Dakota. For reference.

    Cars — even Teslas — don’t work so well when there’s congested traffic, as in California.

    Ted Judah Reply:

    Yeah…but…

    As you admit, the Western States Petroleum Association has been a reliable sponsor of the California Republican Party since 1900’s. (As you know, the oil industry is arguably the most important catalyst of Los Angeles’s economic rise.)

    Cap and Trade *just happens* to be a nifty way for California to reduce oil refinery capacity, which would reduce drilling in the state and exports of petroleum products to East Asia which are *very dependent* on oil imports. (See Iraq War, supra.) That would, of course, reduce WPSA’s pocketbook and help ensure the CA GOP stays marginalized.

    A straight tax on carbon, meanwhile, would spread the “pain” more broadly and may not have as much support…even though it might really push emissions down faster and with greater intensity.

    But like I said to John earlier, C and T still has a beneficial impact…it just doesn’t yield that much revenue. (Anybody who has the seen the evolution of tobacco taxes would see the same thing: it’s been great at reducing smoking among youth when most people become addicted. But it’s value as a revenue source have declined over time.)

    les Reply:

    He’s right, long term emissions won’t matter. We’ll all be wearing oxygen tanks by then.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Why not fins and scales?

    wdobner Reply:

    Well shit, if you require us to only invest in greenhouse gas abatement strategies which will result in a quick fix to the climate crisis then when are you going to push for nuclear reactors on East Palo Alto waterfront? Everything else is a half measure which won’t be nearly as effective at eliminating carbon emissions. So you’d support the construction of nuclear reactors in your backyard rather than some modest improvements to the local commuter rail, right?

    Actually, now that I think of it, go with high temperature, low pressure nukes and you don’t even need the water for cooling. Atherton and Menlo Park could do their part to fight anthropomorphic climate change. Could even pipe water from the bay over to supply carbon neutral diesel fuel production. So when will you push for a nuclear reactor in your backyard?

  5. Aarond
    May 28th, 2016 at 18:02
    #5

    I very much disagree with the anti-Trump turnout comment. This state voted for Arnold, TWICE. And don’t forget, Arnold himself ran against Cruz Bustamante, a hispanic candidate that under normal metrics would have been the shoo-in victor. All the Democrats have to answer for Trump is a stodgy white bureaucrat from NY.

    That said, regardless of the turnout for Trump the state legislature will probably remain blue, unless if there’s a major upset at the convention (which I doubt) and reformist/progressive Democrats decide to send a message (again, unlikely).

    Joe Reply:

    They call and survey people. Apparently the data show this isn’t Arnold vs Cruz.
    I don’t remember Arnold wanting a wall or to asking to roundup Hispanics.

    At this time the Cook report shows no at risk Dem seats in Cali and three incumbent GOP seats competitive and worsening for the incumbent. This dynamic not due to sunspots. It’s Trump’s loud mouth.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Trump was,never winning CA. If he loses 100 to 0 is the same as 51 to 49. He doesn’t care about what CA thinks

    Joe Reply:

    That’s right that Trump doesn’t care. He’s very dangerous to downticket candidates not in tea bagger districts.

    Jeff Denham needs voters and can’t afford the GOP’s masognist, anti immigration messaging. Trump could care less and his the voice of the party.

    Aarond Reply:

    You’re right that Trump doesn’t care about California, his strategy is clearly aimed at the Rust Belt and Great Lakes area. CA is last on his list especially when NY will be his personal battleground.

    My point is that he’s probably the only Republican that could possibly win CA. This would be the third time Californians would vote for a Republican TV celeb. Though, downballot it could lead to a trainwreck. Or (less likely) it could lead to a Republican upset in the Assembly. Or nothing could change.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    I haven’t laughed that hard in months.

    In the New York primary, in nice round numbers, Hillary got twice as many votes as the Donald. Bernie got 50 percent more than the Donald.
    We knew Donald is an asshole decades ago. And while Hillary may be a carpetbagger she’s our carpetbagger. Who won 55% to 43% in 2000 and 67/31 in 2006. The Donald has never run in a general election.

    ….. and I’m sure it will come up again. Donald though Hillary was such a good candidate he contributed to her campaigns. Plural.

    Is the way he’s gonna make America Great Again(tm), landslide victories for the Democrats for a decade or so?

    Aarond Reply:

    My comment about NY wasn’t so much about Trump’s ability to win it, but where his attention will be. I fully expect him to campaign all around your neck of the woods and in NY about how Hilary isn’t a “real” New Yorker and how she’s a criminal etc etc etc.

    Trump was born and grew up in NYC, it’s clearly going to be a priority for him to campaign there regardless if it works or not.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    But won’t the NYC people hate him for his anti-immigrant BS and the upstate NY people for being from NYC…

    Aarond Reply:

    It’s probably going to be a fight of who’s more “New York”, Hilary or Trump. The latter can claim to at least have grown up in NYC.

    It may be crazy but remember that NJ managed to elect Christie (and CA with Arnold), so upsets are more than possible.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    It’s gonna be someone who lives on planet Earth versus bat shit insane whack job. Most people would vote for Jimmy Mc Millian first.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_Is_Too_Damn_High_Party

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Hey. He does have a point about the rent….

    Nathanael Reply:

    Jimmy McMillan was a better choice than Andrew Cuomo.

    Trump has zero chance in NY. The racism is a huge turn-off, as is the sexism. If he’d avoided that, he might have had some chance.

    Eric Reply:

    Actually, Trump plans to campaign heavily in NY and CA.

    (Yes, it’s stupid strategy, but that’s to be expected from him.)

    http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/will-can-donald-trump-win-beat-hillary-clinton-new-york-polls-latest-news-today/

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    And Mitt was going to win in a landslide. . .

    Nathanael Reply:

    Actually, Trump is being crazy like a fox. He’s planning to “campaign” in the two states which have the biggest national media markets. This isn’t intended to win CA and NY, it’s intended to get more free media publicity to benefit him in other states.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    In a sane system it would actually be a very good idea for a Republican (any Republican) to campaign in NY and Cali. Just like it would be for a Democrat to campaign in Texas. But thanks to the ass backwards electoral college winning 51-49 is the same as winning 99-01… Which nobody can justify unless you want to make a travesty out of democracy..

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    There is nothing in the constitution that requires states to give 100% of their electoral college votes to the victors. They chose to do that. And it helps Dems just like GOP. GOP would love to get at least a few delgates out of CA and NY.

    And this “travesty” has resulted in a stable democracy (minus 1 civil war) for 200+ years. Perhaps a little more respect?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Oh please. Do you really call a country a democracy that does not allow more than half its adult population the vote and keeps a very large segment of the population in a second class state?

    The US has not been a democracy since 1776. The same way South Africa did not become a democracy until 1994. There are very few stable democracies in the world. None of them is even one hundred years old. If you really get into the nitty-gritty details some place in Scandinavia is probably the oldest democracy there is. Or maybe it’s Costa Rica after all, which has had peaceful multiparty elections for the same amount of time it has abolished its military.

    And do tell me what you would do if a democracy announced its electoral results in the following form:

    “Candidate A received 234 584 votes. Candidate B received 235 731 votes. […] therefore Candidate A is elected President and will be sworn in in two months time.”

    What would you say about that?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    After a quick surf through the Census Bureau I calculate, in nice round numbers, there are 220 million citizens over the age of 18. 126 million people voted for President in 2012. That’s more than half.
    The ones that didn’t show up don’t care who gets elected or they would show up.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    With my enumeration of people who could not – not did not – vote, I was refering to the larger part of the 200 years of “democracy” Mister Nachtigall has claimed. Until the 1920s women were denied the right to vote in most states (interestingly enough there actually was a woman in Congress when the amendment giving women the right to vote was passed – she in essence became the only woman to ever vote to give women the vote). And well into the 1960s African Americans were deprived of their right to vote as well as several other rights. Now I do not know what you call a system that denies the right to vote to a large subset of its adult population as a matter of course, but democracy is not the first on my list – that I can tell you.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Just because sufferage is limited to men who belong to the right church and own property doesn’t make it undemocratic. That they weren’t purging the heretics is a major accomplishment.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Nobody is denying that the American revolution was a great leap forward. Especially because it carried the words liberty and equality on its lips that were ultimately also claimed (and fought for) by people it wasn’t intended for. But if you call the US of 1780 democratic, what do you call South Africa of 1960?

    Jerry Reply:

    And the winner of the Brexit is……. ?
    Someone once said that democracy is the political belief system (mind set, superstition) that 51% of the (fill in the blank) will be right 51% of the time.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Gee. If we are going to hold the sins of the past against the country then let’s go.

    America did indeedd, for more that half its history only allow half or less than its citizens vote. That half is more than most other countries let vote. While Germany was busy being a Kingdom and a dictatorship, the US was letting those people vote. So if we are lining countries up to be shot for past mistakes, well I don’t think the IS has been around long enough to be at the front of that list

    But you are right, the US is not a democracy, it is a republic. We don’t directly vote on laws, we elect people to do that. So I will correct myself. The US has been a democratic republic for 200+ years. It spawned style republics after WWII in Western Europe and Japan despite being mortal enemies. Fought a Cold War that ended up with republics in the former eastern block. Unprecedented. Those were not vessels, those are independent countries. Never done before in history that a country does that for its enemies.

    If you want to line up all the bad that the US has done, then make sure to pile all the good stuff on the other side.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Oh don’t get me started on past sins. Personally I think Germany should not even exist as a nation-state any more. Not punishing genocidaires goes to other people trying the same. But enough of that.

    The “not a democracy but a republic” line is BS. The US is a Republic – it has no monarch. It is also a democracy (albeit flawed) because people vote on things and most of the time those votes count. It is a representative democracy, like most democracies in the real world are which means that most (or all) laws are made by elected representatives.

    I am – and you might laugh about that but it’s true – incredibly grateful for the USSR the USA and Great Britain (and to a lesser extent France) freeing Germany from Nazism and helping it build a system that while by no means perfect is incredibly better than the Nazi system. And I am sure without the Allies winning the war Germans would still be much more fascist than they are today. Which is not to say denazification could have been more thorough and way too many perpetrators got of scot free. Not every time the US went to war they fought on the side of democracy and justice. But sometimes they did. And I much rather live in world where the US has hegemonic status than in one where the USSR or the People’s Republic of China have that status.

    That does not make the domestic problems of the US go away or the serious failings of its democracy any less serious…

    But it was not me who brought up 200 years of “democracy”…

    Anyway, let’s discuss light rail in Utah…

    Nathanael Reply:

    This travesty has resulted in one of the least stable democracies in the world. It failed in 1860. It almost failed again in 1932 — FDR had to threaten martial law in order to get back on track. (I recently reread some of his early statements as President, and he did threaten martial law. Congress and the courts would go along with the New Deal, or FDR would implement it anyway and to hell with Congress and the courts — he made it clear.)

    We pretend that the Constitution has worked, but it hasn’t. It failed completely, twice. This is not a healthy system. Political scientists agree. Pretty much every country who modeled their Constitution on ours has had their democracy collapse completely because our system sucks. Those who copied Britain’s parliamentary system did a lot better.

    Nathanael Reply:

    Oh, and of course we had a coup in 2000, where the candidate who got fewer votes was declared President after an emergency order to “stop counting the votes!!!” came out of five judges two of whom had family members working on the campaign.

    This is third-world stuff. The US “system” is not performing the chief goal of a democracy. This goal is to make the person who gets into power someone who is considered *legitimate as a leader* by the majority of the population, and thus avert civil war.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    @Aarond. Trump would have the hardest time winning California out of all the GOP canidates. The only ones who might have had a miniscule shot were Jeb!, Kasich, Rubio, and Fiorina.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Oooo yes run the candidate who got 42 percent of the vote when she ran for Senator!

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    California can only be in play if the Latin@ vote looks to not favor the Democrats… Which won’t happen with Trump…

    Aarond Reply:

    And look at what happened in 2003 against Bustamante. An Austrian Übermensch beat a hispanic Democrat even with a second GOP candidate splitting the conservative vote. And then Arnold got a second term.

    Domayv Reply:

    and then that Austrian ubermensch sealed the fate for the GOP in California….

    Aarond Reply:

    Absolutely true. Which is why the idea of a Hilary presidency doesn’t excite me.

    joe Reply:

    What? So Arnold proves Trump can win Hispanic votes but Arnold is actually Hilary.

    This is almost a parody.

    Domayv Reply:

    @Aarond and joe: what I’m meaning to say is that Arnold effectively brought about the demise of the GOP in California

    Joe Reply:

    Was Arnold the symptom or cause of GOP end?
    I say symptom of a party on the rocks.

    Recall Issa bankrolled the recall and wanted to be Gov but Arnold stepped in to the short campaign.

    I see Aarond’s point that Trimp’s a celebrity but he is also (from “total recall”) is an unlikeable asshole.

    Domayv Reply:

    @Joe: Arnold signed in the laws that resulted in the increase in gun restrictions (making California one of the strictest states when it comes with guns), which to the GOP was violating a taboo (and a really big one because the GOP worship the Second Amendment religiously).

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Only half of the Second Amendment. The other half they ignore very studiously.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    There was an interview with someone in the Austrian village Arnie was born in about his victory (apparently they were all celebrating the fact that the local boy had made it) I try to put it together from memory

    Interviewer: “Arnold has won, are you happy?
    Austrian: “Of course I am! He’s a local boy! We’re so happy”
    Interviewer: “So would you like him to come back and be your mayor?”
    Austrian: “No. Not under any circumstances. Let the Americans keep him”

    Of course I may have missed the subtle (and quite dark) Austrian humor, but this does seem telling…

    Nathanael Reply:

    When the Black Panthers formed a local self-defense militia — the exact sort which the Second Amendment was *intended* to protect — Republicans fell all over themselves trying to pass gun control laws.

    (I did spend a while studying the history of the Second Amendment and its predecessor provisions in the English Bill of Rights. The sort of group it was supposed to protect is *perfectly exemplified* by the Black Panthers, *exactly*.)

    Aarond Reply:

    @Nathanael

    Most Republicans are aware of this now as well. Though, it’s worth remembering that the GOP and NRA were much more centrist back in the 1960s. Before the actual gun bans in europe, people didn’t actually think guns could get banned.

    Aarond Reply:

    California didn’t vote for either Bush, so Jeb! never had a shot ever. People also rejected Carly’s friend (Meg Whitman) for Brown. Trump has the best shot because he’s *not* really a Republican, he’s a celebrity first. People will totally vote for that, like they have done six times now (in 1967, 71, 80, 84, 2003 and 2006).

    That’s not much, but it’s more than the rest of the GOP is willing to serve up.

    Nathanael Reply:

    Hillary Clinton is from Arkansas, not NY.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    She’s a country club Republican from suburban Chicago. Who has been in an Ivy League ghetto since she entered college.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    She didn’t grow up rich. She grew up in middle class streetcar suburb Chicago, got to the Ivy’s through her own talent, and isn’t living in a ghetto (what makes you think that–most people respect the Ivy’s.) She certainly isn’t a country club Republican, being one of the most liberal senators while in Congress, and it is simply false to consider her right wing.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Ghettos come in all shapes and sizes.

    Car(e)-Free LA Reply:

    You have an odd definition of ghetto–i wouldn’t consider chappaqua ghetto, though it is too far from Manhattan for my taste.

    Joe Reply:

    Park Ridge, IL
    It’s near O’Hare airport so “country club” republican makes me laugh.

    I grew up in Chicago/Dunning immediately south. She’s from a Middle class white town in segregated Chicagoland.

    Nothing well to do about being in ohares flight paths.
    Nothing “country club” about it.

  6. John Nachtigall
    May 28th, 2016 at 18:21
    #6

    “AB 32 and the cap-and-trade system are still the only real, meaningful effort happening in the United States to tackle the climate crisis and cut carbon emissions”

    Ok I call BS. This s statement is not true, US carbon emissions are falling even with a recovering economy. The US is doing its part

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/10/us-carbon-emissions-set-to-fall-to-lowest-level-in-two-decades

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Partly because natural gas is so cheap it’s out competing coal.

    wdobner Reply:

    You didn’t read beyond the headline of that article, did you? The headline is misleading, but this quote from the EPA report is crucial:

    “On an emissions rate basis (t/MWh), 2015 will be the cleanest year in over 60 years for which we have historical data,”

    Total energy related CO2 emissions rose in 2014. What declined was the quantity of emissions normalized against total energy consumed. With increasing energy consumption there is still an increase in emissions level despite the increasing efficiency outlined by the Guardian article.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    So in other words we are making progress, but the energy consumption is still rising too fast…

    How is the US doing on energy efficiency? Are there any programs to make that happen?

  7. Joe
    May 28th, 2016 at 18:31
    #7

    By executive order the EPA is acting.
    There’s no meaningful effort – it’s all one executive pushing.

    Also we are not as successful as the data show.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/15/epa-issues-large-upward-revision-to-u-s-methane-emissions/

    We emit way too much unaccounted for GHG using bottom up RPA accounting methods. Fracking emits more GHG co2 equilivanlent than coal. Top down methods observe too much methane.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    How much methane does coal mining emit?

    Jerry Reply:

    Methane? Reagan said it’s from those damn cows when they burp.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    well if Reagan said it then it must be true. oh wait…

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Trees cause more pollution than cars – Ronald I was in a Union but that different

    They have the values of our founding father – Ronald bombing a small country near you about actual fascists in Nicaragua

    Jos Callinet Reply:

    And Fart.

    Jos Callinet Reply:

    Controlling animal methane-gas releases is, I fear, proving to be “emission impossible”!

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    The number of bovines on earth in part depends upon the human demand for lactic products and bovine muscle fibers…

    Or in other words: Cheeseburgers.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    He specifically said carbon emissions. Carbon emissions are down

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Methane has carbon in it.

    Joe Reply:

    methane emissions are a carbon emission.

    Emission reduction goals and Cap and trade works with a CO2 standard emission unit. Methane is traded and measured in aggregate using co2 equivalent units.

    Methane data is EPA and bottom up. Scientists using air and space based me auras and estimate show the bottom up method is wrong and way underestimates emissions.

    The article is using erroneous data. It’s being fixed and methane / fracking isn’t as clean given leaks from extraction to use.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    So when you posted a month ago that carbon emissions were down and GDZp was rising….you lied? You knew the data was not true?

    Because it is 1 or the other?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    CO2

    les Reply:

    Methane emissions as a major greenhouse component is relatively new as far as EPA is concerned.
    http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-03-14/us-methane-emissions-are-drastically-underestimated-new-study-shows

    Joe Reply:

    Methane is long known to be a GHG problem gas.

    Very newly accepted that the methane data provided by industry to the EPA were not correctly accounting for all emissions by a wide margin.

    We have top down numbers – actual, integrated observations – that exceed bottom up data.

    Jos Callinet Reply:

    Is there a methane to this madness?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Methanes thou dost protest too much!

    Joe Reply:

    First youre switching the argument.

    “AB 32 and the cap-and-trade system are still the only real, meaningful effort happening in the United States to tackle the climate crisis and cut carbon emissions”

    Ok I call BS. This s statement is not true, US carbon emissions are falling even with a recovering economy. The US is doing its part

    There isn’t a cohesive effort.
    The Executive, Obama, is acting within current law under executive power to regulate emissions. He is being challenged in court. Not a long term effort.

    The ARRA investments are one time and tax incentives for things like electric vehicles are temporary.
    You can’t say emissions are down as a counter to the fact AB32 is a carbon reduction policy.

    Second, I looked into the claims and your attribution to the emission benefits of fracking and found out the data is bottom up and incomplete. In part the massive emission leak in socal ilustrated the potential for error and top down data conflict with EPA derived estimates.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    1. The official EPA numbers show it is down. I read about your theory with methane, but it is unproven. The official numbers are it is down. Anything else is speculation. The anti fracking crowd can say whatever they like, the numbers are the numbers. The EPA is controlled by the president who is a democrat and claims to want to stop global warming, so you can’t say they are faking the numbers.

    2. Regardless, the reduction in CO2 emissions are real and a result of switching from coal to gas (a meaningful effort) an increase in gas mileage (a meaningful effort) and alternative energy (a meaningful effort). Simply put, AB32 is not the only meaningful effort and that is proven by a reduction in CO2 regardless of methane or not

    AB 32 hasn’t done anything yet, the real changes have come from private sources, but that does not fit you world view so you ignore it.

    And is remind you again that you were the one who posted that carbon emissions where down a month ago without saying anything about methane. Explain that!

    Joe Reply:

    I read about your theory with methane, but it is unproven

    Theory – you misuse the word.

    It’s from observations made by sampling air. The observational data show greater than bookkeeping accounted methane concentrations.

    I looked into the science behind the articles on us emissions and methods for estimating methane by the EPA. I’m not convinced any longer the EPA data is complete.

    My background we built land surface models estimating co2 flux and used airborne observations to validate the models.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE

  8. swing hanger
    May 30th, 2016 at 17:37
    #8

    o.t.
    Looks like hyperloop has had a reality check and is changing their tune with this spin:

    Rocketing commuters between Los Angeles and San Francisco isn’t the first run expected by top executives working on Elon Musk’s hyperloop idea

    Hyperloop One is planning to prove it can move freight first, and then people, through local tubes it hopes to build along existing routes, such as highways 101 or 280 from the South Bay to San Francisco.

    “We don’t have to go 800 miles to add value with hyperloop,” Rob Lloyd, who became Hyperloop One CEO after leaving his job as Cisco Systems No. 2 executive last summer, told me in an interview for this week’s Silicon Valley Business Journal cover story.”We can go 40 miles and add a tremendous amount of value.”

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/blog/techflash/2016/05/hyperloops-first-priority-is-local-runs-not-elon.html

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Unloading it from the truck at the terminal, loading it onto the train, unloading it from the train and loading it back onto a truck will take more time and cost more than just leaving it on the truck.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    That’s always a big problem with many forms of transport…

    trentbridge Reply:

    Amazon could use a hyperloop to shuttle parcels from distribution centers like Tracy to the Bay Area – increasing same day delivery options.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I think we have established that the expensive thing is actually getting downtown…

    Or do you think SF property prices will react kindly to an Amazon Hyperloop?

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    If it wasn’t a kind of project beloved by the Kool Aid drinkers people would have pointed out the absurdities of Hyped Loop on national TV long ago…

    Jos Callinet Reply:

    As long as the Hyperloop carries only freight, its designers won’t have to worry about (or engineer out) its “barf ride” characteristics.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    They will only have to worry about its unrealistic cost projections…

    Aarond Reply:

    Perhaps I’m being a bit melodramatic, but it’s stuff like this that makes me really think that we’re in a tech bubble. That guy left a perfectly good (stable) job at Cisco to do this. 40 miles is like running from SJ to Oakland. Even the autocar hype at least has some basis in reality.

    Also, what really does upsets me is that through all this hype, still nobody is talking about the magic that is AVAC (vac trash collection) systems which would actually have a market (specifically, because they integrate well with existing logistics networks).

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The tubes cost too much.

    Aarond Reply:

    I bet schools would love to have them, as would airports, large office towers, and Market street (given the street feces situation). They don’t all have to be connected, you could do it for just a single neighborhood and have it all collect in one place (even directly into railcars) rather than requiring all the local streets to be large enough for garbage trucks.

    It’s such an obvious answer to street garbage problems it makes me wonder why nobody is trying to push it.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The local streets have to be big enough for ambulances and fire engines.

    Jos Callinet Reply:

    @ Aarond – could you please enlighten us about the Market Street Feces Situation?

    Edward Reply:

    I can let fly with a related bit.

    When BART built their subway entrances they put the gates that are closed at night at the bottom of the stairs and escalator. This leaves the stairs and escalator exposed to the elements and provides a convenient location to take a dump in privacy in the early hours. These reasons are why BART has such a high escalator failure rate and explains the entrance aroma effect.

    New entrances are being constructed. There is at least one in downtown Oakland that encloses the stairs and escalator and blocks access when the gate is closed.

    Aarond Reply:

    Basically the homeless people in SF now use the streets as their toilet. I’ve already stepped in it once, and there is nothing more embarrass than having to tell out-of-town friends to watch out for it.

    Unlike most I don’t blame the city for it, since there’s not really anything the city can do about it when other states bus them to us. But the state should at least have the cash to relocate them into housing. Housing which doesn’t exist because no Bay Area cities (especially SF and Oakland) want it. And nobody wants to raise taxes for proper prisons, either.

    Ted K. Reply:

    Re : “ambulances and fire engines”

    Do those vehicles have to be as large as they are ? Some airport fire engines have a lower profile so as to fit closer to some airliners. Do you want t-rexes / King Tigers or can two (maybe three) v-raptors / Shermans do the job ?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    As long as the property owners don’t mind paying the extra taxes to maintain a separate fleet of emergency response vehicles. And the higher insurance premiums.

    Jon Reply:

    You could just maintain one fleet of emergency reaponse vehicles, sized so that they can get down every street in the city. The great thing about smaller emergency response vehicles is they can drive down the large streets as well as the small ones!

    I’m not remotely interested in the trash collection by tube idea being discussed here, but the size of emergency vehicles is important for other reasons. Fire departments regularly nix proposed street corner bulbouts with the argument that the turn radius would be too small for their oversized vehicles to navigate.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Ya think they have the huge trucks for the fun of it?

    Ted K. Reply:

    @adirondacker12800 – YES !

    @ Jon – What if they started from a smaller truck that was sized for house and small apartment building (< 10 units) fires. Then for larger fires / remote locations there would be a booster truck with pumps and a water tank. Also, what about the fuel bill for today's units vs. that for smaller ones ? Smaller may mean cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate.

    P.S. I'm not advocating getting rid of aerial units – the tractor-trailers of the fire engine world. They have their place but maybe they might want to try designing a junior size as a gap-filler between an engine company and a full-size unit.

    an S.F. resident
    Phoenixes rock !

    Jon Reply:

    @adirondacker12800 – Yep. Every other country manages with smaller fire engines, why not the US?.

    swing hanger Reply:

    Many say that using smaller apparatus would negatively affect a community’s ISO rating, resulting in higher insurance premiums for homeowners. That may or may not be the case according to some eye-opening research on the topic.

    In 2006, Chris Orman completed an applied research project, “The Impacts of Changes in the use of ISO Ratings by Insurance Companies Serving North Monterey (Calif.) County,” as part of the National Fire Academy’s Executive Fire Officer Program.

    Orman found that the majority of residential and commercial insurance underwriters have significantly changed how they calculate property insurance premiums. Those companies had either completely migrated away from using the ISO’s Public Protection Classification or were continuing to the use it as only one of several factors for calculating premiums.

    https://www.firerecruit.com/articles/71492018-Are-American-fire-trucks-too-big

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    The garbage tubes are reasonable to build in new developments. They have been constructed in the New Songdo development in Incheon, South Korea.

  9. morris brown
    May 30th, 2016 at 19:20
    #9

    Dan Walters: Jerry Brown on the spot in final days of writing new state budget

    A side issue to the main budget is also a gut check for the governor. He’s proposed $3.1 billion in spending from proceeds of the state’s “cap-and-trade” auctions of carbon dioxide emission allowances, based on the assumption that the auctions will generate more than $2 billion a year.

    However, this month’s auction generated less than 2 percent of its anticipated revenue, and it may be a semi-permanent condition due to a complex set of market conditions.

    Will Brown now back away from his spending plan, a big chunk of which is designated for his pet bullet train project, or plow ahead on the assumption that it is a one-time hiccup and the money will be there?

    Jos Callinet Reply:

    The “fit is about to hit the shan”!

  10. Jos Callinet
    May 30th, 2016 at 19:44
    #10

    Robert’s post here on Cap-‘n-Trade has stimulated quite a fascinating mid-year review, assessment and analysis of this election year’s many uncertainties factoring into the final results we’ll be discussing in this blog after the ballots have been counted and the dust has settled in November.

    This election season could well prove to be an even bumpier ride than the barfy one the Hyperloop is promising. The two front-runners, Trump and Clinton, are going to generate some verbal fireworks.

    Complicating matters is the possibility that either Hillary and/or The Donald could yet run afoul of the law in the course of the investigations being done on them (Donald’s taxes and Trump Academy scandal and, of course, Hillary’s “damned e-mails”). Adding further to the chaos and uncertainty is what Sanders’ supporters decide to do when Bernie inevitably has to face the math and concede to Clinton in a few short days. Will they rush to Hillary or cast their lot with Trump, or resignedly stay at home?. I’m one of them – not at all sure what I’ll do, or for whom I’ll vote, come November.

    It’s gonna be one helluva ride between now and then, that’s one thing we can all count on.

    Aarond Reply:

    It’s also worth mentioning how important the Internet in this election cycle. Sanders would not exist as a candidate if it was not for the Internet allowing his supporters to quickly organize and get working. Same is true for Trump, looking back now he has done a phenomenal job of “meme”-ifying himself and building up an e-persona. When people think about him, they think about him in the context of a google search, not a TV interview.

    Though, I don’t know what happens next. I pulled out my old Neil Postman collection and most of it “predicted” exactly the mess this election is. It’s curious how he was able to write it without the context of a mainstream Internet.

    les Reply:

    I like how Johnson and Kristol have thrown their names into the hat to mess with the dynamics. Will Sanders do the same? It would be nice if somebody who I actually liked threw their name in.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    If there was a national runoff Sanders would be an idiot not to run. However, due to the fact that there isn’t the loser of the Democratic primary would be an idiot to run.

  11. trentbridge
    May 31st, 2016 at 07:05
    #11

    There will be two Propositions about to qualify for the November ballot that will encourage liberal turnout in California – one abolishes the death penalty and one legalizes marijuana. I’d say California was SAFE DEMOCRATIC…

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    How are the prognosis for the two?

Comments are closed.