If the utility company would pay consumers for energy above and beyond
the amount they generated for personal use that is dumped back to the
grid, we would have the incentive for installing solar and wind powered
electric generating equipment. Under present procedure you can put
excess power into the grid and offset your power consumption, but
anything extra you feed to the grid is a gift to the utility company.
I am of the opinion that people will spend capital to invest in power if
it will put cash in their pocket, even if the amount is small. Once you
have provided for your own needs anything extra is a revenue stream. If
you combine that with low interest loans many more people will install
solar.
Return On Investment should not be the only yardstick used to evaluate
energy saving decisions. We all have a responsibility to ourselves, our
own and our collective children to leave them a decent world to live in.
A world that has a killer climate because our ROI was not good enough to
convince us to reduce hydrocarbon fuel consumption is not the sort of
legacy I would want to leave mine, or your children.
Harold
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Cope <
eric.cope@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Main PLUG discussion list
<
plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
To: Main PLUG discussion list <
plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
Subject: Re: OT - Have you seen this ad?
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:24:47 -0700
all interesting points... but which government agency is forcing you,
myself, and every other programmer to contribute 30% of your time to
open source projects that you may or may not want to contribute? Taking
without my permission is stealing. The government takes my money without
my permission (choosing payment over jail time is not permission)
"I think the real measure of a society's greatness is the way it treats
its most vulnerable members."
I agree, thats why I donate my time, money, and effort to causes I
support when I want, how I want, and to what degree I want. The same can
not be said regarding government assistance programs. Thats why things
like the Salvation Army and most soup kitchens still exist despite
government programs "effectiveness."
Libertarianism is pooling your resources for your causes, when and how
you want.
Socialism is pooling your resources how your government wants, without
any control on your part.
I do take the bus, every day to work. And I bike between house<->bus and
the bus<->work.
I agree with all of your goals, its your method that scares me and holds
back the growth of all classes, especially the poor.
The question I ask myself often is, "what if everything I believed was
wrong? How would that impact my goals? my methods? my life?" I know my
answer... do you?
Thanks for the interaction! This is great! We need to meet at an
upcoming meeting.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Alex Dean <alex@crackpot.org> wrote:
Eric Cope wrote:
However, if the government were to steal money for other
purposes, that don't benefit you, then it would be a
completely different situation.
That's what elections are for. If you don't like what your
taxes are
being spent for, elect someone else. If you want to have no
taxes and no services, fair 'nuff. I wouldn't vote for that,
but I can cope with people disagreeing.
'Stealing' is an inaccurate term in my view. I don't personally
benefit
from food stamps, unemployment insurance, homeless shelters, or
a
million other programs, but I am happy to contribute to them. I
think
the real measure of a society's greatness is the way it treats
its most
vulnerable members. We hear a lot of pandering to the 'middle
class',
and not nearly enough about helping the poor. To tell me I only
support
things out of selfishness just means you don't know me at all.
You're taking some suggestions I had about concrete,
tangible ideas (get a quote for solar hot water, check the bus
schedules), and turning this into a thread about ideology, about
the
illegitimacy of government. It's not very convincing, and seems
likely
to spark a 'my politics is better than your politics' argument.
'Ideas' and 'ideology' have a common root, but in practice they
rarely interact. If we can stick to specific points, I'm with
you. If we're going up in the clouds, I quit.
Additionally, when you see how much
money the city governments subsidize your bus system,
and now light rail system, your $/mile or $/day is very
high.
How much do we spend on road maintenance? How much land do we
loose to
huge superhighways to accommodate all those cars? What price do
we all
pay breathing the smog produced by large numbers of cars with
only 1
occupant? How much time do we lose sitting in traffic jams?
If you don't live near a convenient bus route, don't use the
bus. My point was you'd be surprised how often you can get
where you're going, and in about the same amount of time, and
without having to look for a parking space at the end of your
ride. If you want to drive, by all means. I use my car often
enough, and I'm not trying to tell you cars are bad.
> Additionally, while city
governments subsidize bus systems, they also prevent
other systems from entering the market through licensing
and lack of subsidies. The end result is a very poor
system that has no market forces forcing it to be 2 of
the 3, better, faster, or cheaper.
Multiple transit companies competing can also be a huge waste of
resources. Lots of duplicated effort. Lots of redundant
service in high-population areas and a lack of service
elsewhere. A transit system works best when it's comprehensive,
when you can get EVERYWHERE. Maybe some private contracts would
improve things in some areas, but I'd be really leery of turning
the whole thing over to the lowest bidder.
For example, I wanted to take a
bus from i-10 and Elliot to ASU. The bus route would
take just over an hour. I rode my bike the seven miles
in 30 minutes.
No doubt routes could be improved. My observation has been that
if you
live near a route that works, the system is pretty good. But
too often,
you don't. The system is not nearly as comprehensive is it
ought to be, and I'd support ideas to make it more so.
About the bike : Folks who are blind, elderly, or in a
wheelchair aren't
going to be riding a bike. I think providing basic
transportation
options to everyone is a legitimate service a local government
ought to
provide. It's not stealing, and I don't know why you'd call it
that.
Your favored
subsidies, your pooled resources, create (financially,
timely, and environmentally) extremely inefficient
mechanisms, in this case a crappy, smelly, rude, late,
slow, bus system.
I dismiss this as unsupported assertion, not real argument.
With this
kind of hyperbole, I'm rapidly losing interesting in continuing
the
discussion. You're coming off as a zealot. You continue to
imply that there's no legitimate role for government in
providing public transit, and I think you're flat wrong about
that, but if you're going to make your point with talk-radio
style I'll just let this drop. A civil debate with actual
information I'm interested in, a shouting match I'm not. I like
to have my thinking challenged, but I don't like to be berated.
The core of what I'm trying to say is simple. Just this : There
are lots of good ideas for lessening our energy consumption.
Cars with better MPG are only 1 of them. The bus system works
quite well in many circumstances. I benefit, and so do many
others. You might be pleasantly surprised if you try it.
That's it. Not much more to it.
I appreciate your last statement about having a good debate, and
no I
don't take it personally. But if you want to turn this into a
tirade
about the tyranny of the nanny state, you're going much further
afield
than I have interest in following.
kind regards,
alex
ps - Maybe I can make this point a different way : 'pooling
resources'
is exactly what makes open source work. If everybody insisted
on doing everything for themselves, we'd all be re-implementing
a merge sort in
assembly language every time we wanted to put up a web page. It
might be fun, but it certainly isn't productive. If you're so
libertarian that any cooperation seems like socialism, I think
we aren't going to find much common ground.
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss