Posted at LP.org by Donny Ferguson. Reposted to IPR by Paulie.
The Obama administration, convinced that lightbulbs and other uses of energy are destroying the planet, is considering imposing $646 billion in new "light switch" taxes on Americans to drive up utility bills and force people to use less electricity. The American Council for Capital Formation, using the Energy Department’s own forecasting models, finds so-called "cap and trade" legislation will not only increase the price of electrity by as much as 129% by 2030, but eliminate between three and four million jobs by 2030.
So you’d think Obama’s own Environmental Protection Agency would be at the forefront of energy conservation efforts. After all, if electric lights are so deadly we need $646 billion in new taxes, 129% higher utility bills and four million unemployed workers to force Americans to turn them off, surely the EPA is doing what it can to set an example and curb energy use.
Well, this just happens to be a photo I snapped on my Blackberry of the EPA’s Constitution Avenue headquarters here in D.C. at 9:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 1, 2009.
My thanks to everyone for the comments and Geoffrey you are not the first person to read that this way, which is good to know. That tells me to be specifically clear which is a note I have in the file on this pamphlet. It helps to be able to test these with a group before they are handed out to the public.
All the notes will be copied and put in the file for further editing.
Thanks again folks.
BTW Geoffrey I notice you have been invaded by the Normans recently so will you send our troops home? 😉
MW
Geoffrey,
Bastiat once said “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.”
I believe the same could be said for much of what Michael was referring. Just because he said we should put out/advocate a piece that says we *should* do something, it doesn’t mean it must be through the hand of government.
Since you mention, see Ayn R. Key’s new article at NFV….
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-antelope-valley-tea-party/
We’ve noticed with some humor and self flogging these Tea Parties you have been holding.
The news reports that our former colony is angry again! Only this time with their own governement and not ours!
It appears your LP has a good list here: http://www.lp.org/blogs/donny-ferguson/you-are-cordially-invited-to-a-tea-party
I wish you all best of luck with this on your tax day!
Geoffrey
Reteaparty is a nonpartisan site dedicated to spreading the doctrine of smaller government and lower taxation. Check it out to find the nearest Independence Day Tea Party, without any Partisan dogma. http://www.reteaparty.com
Geoffrey,
Michael was suggesting ways for free people to help the environment voluntarily rather than through government fiat.
We should encourage that.
Geoffrey, nowhere in there was there any indication of using government to force these changes. As such, they are suggestions that people can look at and say, “Hey, that’s a good idea.”
No implication of force by government anywhere there.
Try again.
#20 – Mr. Wilson is suggesting a Pamphlet on Global Warming to include the following:
How much we humans contribute to Global Warming is a question that may never be answered to anyone’s satisfaction, but here are a few comments that may help mitigate the problem.
1. Using concrete instead of asphalt for roads and other surfaces will reflect the sun’s rays instead of absorbing them and result in a reduction of the air temperature of the surrounding area.
2. The same applies to roofs. White roofs reflect the sun’s rays and reduce the temperature of the surrounding area.
I made the assumption he is saying your LP or others representing themselves as “libertarian” should be handing out this pamphlet – is that correct Mr. Wilson?
If so who should be the ones to pay for these improvements?
How about if one lives in a northern climate like I do (Scotland) where having dark roofs will reduce our heating costs? Or even your Alaska where one must heat their home 9 months out of the year? Wouldn’t black surfaces actual reduce costs not increase?
A more libertarian way is clearly explained in your platform: “Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems…”
Instead of “telling” me to use a certain type of light bulb, or enforcing me like your own government is about to do by banning incandescent lights, perhaps it is best to let free markets create the demand by making environmentally friendly light bulbs less expensive than the alternative. This is the best approach. I’ve mentioned in previous discussions on the banning of light bulbs what a disaster that’s been here in the UK and EU. Your country needs to take notice of our failures instead of emulating our socialistic ways!
And here your Mr. Wilson is actually suggesting your USLP puts out a pamphlet saying these things? Is he “Green Party” plant?
Good evening,
Geoffrey
Geoffrey,
When did anyone suggest dictating anything to you or anyone else? Please point out that part specifically.
Good lord!
I never thought I’d see the day that a libertarian would want to dictate what color my roof or pavement should be?
We have our “Green” party much like you do for this purpose. Our government already tells us what chemicals we may or may not ad to our food products to preserve it, what types of electrical appliances we can and con not use, if we can have a wood burning fireplace or not, and so forth.
The LPUK works hard to give people more choices not less. I am truly shocked that someone claiming to be “libertarian” would suggest what I read above.
I must rest now, for this is overwhelming me.
Good day!
I think this is a relatively weak commentary from HQ.
But Donny in particular seems very open to help and constructive criticism, so I think Aaron’s idea of sending suggested commentaries to Donny is very on the mark.
Michael @20:
1) Removing excess concrete from places like river flood basins (see also Los Angeles River) and greenscaping helps.
2) Even better for roofs is a mix of gardenscaping (rooftop vegetable gardens) and solar panels.
3) Yup.
4) See also http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/New_cheaper_white_light_LEDs_are_created_999.html. CFBs aren’t the answer.
5) Yup.
6) Yup. Also, monocropping is not as efficient as polycropping in fields, and the excessive petrochemical fertilizers needed in conventional agriculture are a huge greenhouse gas problem.
7) That one needs elaboration, but I know that floor-clearing of deadwood cuts the ground-fire problem significantly (doesn’t do much for the fires that jump tree-tops, however). The beetle infestations can be dealt with improving their natural predators in those forest, particularly amongst the bird populations that the current logging practices deplete.
Fine, Miller, step up and prove it. Go find some bills for the LPCA to endorse or oppose. Then come to Visalia and present them in a rational, unbiased manner to the entire convention. Organize a legislative analysis process for each legislative session, make it self-sustainable, and able for anyone to make sense out of it to even begin to do proper interaction in Sacramento for lobbying and helping candidates(or any other state capital), and then we’ll talk. Not only do I doubt you have it in you, I doubt you’ll even try. It is far more complex than you (and most people) realize. Consider this a two-week notice.
And FYI, for the umpteenth time for your selective amnesia, when I research initiatives for a state issue, it is state-level in focus. If you want a federal focus then talk to the LNC. I’m sure they will be most happy to undertake the time, money, and human resources for such an endeavor.
Remember, I had to do Outright’s homework for them and actually ask the IRS about DPI instead of relying on assumptions, non-applicable hypotheticals, almost-but-not-quite scenarios, and unsubstantiated POOTA numbers. That answer is pending, and it’s only being done as a favor to a good friend. So don’t go complaining about a lack of research when you didn’t do yours either. Had you bothered to do that research you would already know why the other ballot initiative to repeal Prop 8 is not only premature, but also may not survive a legal challenge either–and it doesn’t change the federal situation any more than VT, IA, MA, or CT do. Outright out to be focusing on the DC issue, because that one is most likely to force the DOMA showdown you should be screaming for in the first place.
One last thing: The LPCA ExComm endorsed the DPI I submitted a recommendation of “No Position”. That’s their enumerated power, and they have every right to do so (in fact, they have ignored recommendations in the past), and it doesn’t bother me at all. I had no vote in the issue, either. So kwitcherbitchin at me. Had you any idea of the process, you would know that already.
I like it alot too michael
So do I. Can we get a candidate, local or state party to issue it so we can make it an article here?
I like it alot too michael
You don’t want the LP to stand for free markets, Ross. That’s rather ignorant
Michael, that’s what I’m talking about – offer sensible alternatives instead of just rattling off Republican (or Republican-sounding) talking points.
When I went to Washington recently I actually lobbied my Senator to reduce agriculture subsidies.
I wouldn’t bitch too much about Donny’s work and let’s try to help the man out. If he doesn’t respond then we have a place to complain.
So here’s my piece that is going to him.
MW
Pamphlet on Global Warming
How much we humans contribute to Global Warming is a question that may never be answered to anyone’s satisfaction, but here are a few comments that may help mitigate the problem.
1. Using concrete instead of asphalt for roads and other surfaces will reflect the sun’s rays instead of absorbing them and result in a reduction of the air temperature of the surrounding area.
2. The same applies to roofs. White roofs reflect the sun’s rays and reduce the temperature of the surrounding area.
“Globally, roofs account for 25% of the surface of most cities, and pavement accounts for about 35%. If all were switched to reflective material in 100 major urban areas, it would offset 44 metric gigatons of greenhouse gases, which have been trapping heat in the atmosphere and altering the climate on a potentially dangerous scale.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/10/local/me-roofs10
3. Open the transit market to competition. Some of the most polluting vehicles are those owned by low income people who do not have access to other transportation services because in most American cities the government has made it virtually impossible to own and operate a private transportation business. By opening the transportation business to other types of providers low income people will then have access to alternatives that may reduce the number older polluting cars on the roads. One source estimates that wide spread use of jitneys for urban transit could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50%, or more.
4. Advancements in technology of LED, light emitting diodes, may significantly change the way we light our homes and workplaces. Some estimate that the saving in electricity will be in the hundreds of terawatts. Building codes that make adoption of new technologies need to be repealed.
“If all of the world’s light bulbs were replaced with LEDs for a period of 10 years, Schubert and Kim estimate the following benefits would be realized:
• Energy savings of 1.9 × 1020 joules
• Electrical energy consumption would be reduced by terawatt hours
• Financial savings of $1.83 trillion
• Carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 10.68 gigatons
• Crude oil consumption would be reduced by 962 million barrels
• The number of required global power plants would be reduced by 280 ”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217074908.htm
5. The U.S. military and its world wide deployment to some 700, or more bases in 130 countries worldwide use a huge amount of petroleum products that can be reduced significantly. Thus reducing pollution and saving considerable amounts.
http://www.govexec.com/features/0607-01/0607-01s3.htm
It’s impossible to overstate the challenge facing Defense. It is the single-largest consumer of petroleum in the world. Oil fuels the world economy; specifically, it fuels every weapons system operated by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.
6. Agricultural subsidies have shifted food production from areas near our cities to cross country sites that require long distance trucking and are subject to other numerous problems from food borne diseases rapid spread of agricultural pest and disease.
7. Government forest management techniques by the local people prior to the arrival of Europeans are believed by some researchers to resulted in forest that had about fifty large diameter trees per acre instead of the present practice of developing industrial forest of small diameter trees with 500 per acre that result in beetle infestation and intense fires.
###
Incidentally, an important part of #3 is apologizing or doing pre-emptive damage control in the universe outside of LP-land with regard to the idiotic actions of groups 1 and 2.
That’s a lot of work, too… which rarely gets noticed unless group 3 DOESN’T do it.
There are those who do work and there are those who like to criticize those who do work.
Oh Aaron, I so do love your passive aggression. It’s charming. 🙂
There’s actually three groups in this party:
1) Those who do dirty work;
2) Those who do work with little to no value;
3) Those who do work on their own (outside the party structure).
Almost all the effective stuff is done by group number three. Group numbers one and two can guess who they are.
Perhaps Miller ought to see if he can do legislative research any better here in CA. All I see from him is a bunch of blow and no go.
Perhaps you should do your research *before* you endorse a policy, rather than *after*.
And yes, I could certainly do better. Heck, I think anybody could. After all, it’s better to do nothing than to do active harm with good intentions. 🙂
Thanks, Aaron. I can be as critical as anybody, including to you in the past, but all respects. 🙂
Michael Seebeck has it spot on.
One thing I’ve noticed is that there seem to be two groups in this movement. There are those who do work and there are those who like to criticize those who do work.
I have huge respect for those who do work, even when they have a different point of view from mine.
People who work with me know that I will tend to select someone who works hard and disagrees with me (as long as they are not trying to undermine my work) over someone who agrees with me and is generally slothful.
Michael Seebeck is one of those who is in the “does work” category. I’ll cite you a recent example. I was at the last Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee meeting several weeks ago and Seebeck gave a report on upcoming legislation. I later asked him about what it would take to do an initiative to implement IRV in Los Angeles. He promised to get back to me with an answer and he delivered.
(I believe after we examined the requirements more closely, we concluded that the signatures required would exceed our available resources, but my point remains the same.)
Bottom line: Seebeck is able to make a commitment and keep it. That earns both my respect and my thanks.
In my utility bill this month there was a notice that rates were raised 13% to pay for vegetation cleaning and grid-something-or-other.
Perhaps Miller ought to see if he can do legislative research any better here in CA. All I see from him is a bunch of blow and no go.
Believe me, there is no absence of work to do in that area.
Brian, put up or shut up. You want to bitch and moan about legislative research, then step up and do better.
I get sick and tired of the criticism from uninformed directions that refuse to even try to help where plenty is needed and appreciated.
Yet this party will succeed despite that deadwood.
1) I pay dues to get people who are supposed to do that full time;
2) The LP national doesn?t listen to its members on most issues ? even who they want to represent them on the LNC, based on your Keaton ouster ? so why would I waste my energy pretending it?s going to be different this time?
See comment immediately above.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/libertarian-party-blog-the-lights-are-on-but-nobodys-home/comment-page-1/#comment-53822
Write up future commentaries as you would like to see them and send it to Donny Ferguson at LPHQ
Two problems with that approach:
1) I pay dues to get people who are supposed to do that full time;
2) The LP national doesn’t listen to its members on most issues — even who they want to represent them on the LNC, based on your Keaton ouster — so why would I waste my energy pretending it’s going to be different this time? 🙂
@ 6, 7, 8:
Maybe they can be press releases from a state or county party or from one of our presidential candidates.
Whatever they are, publish them here and on various websites and make an effort to get them in LTEs, op-eds, newspaper columns, youtube clips, etc. as widely as possible.
Sort of like a “shadow LPHQ”. Maybe the real LPHQ will start picking up our stuff, maybe not, but it would start getting out one way or another.
Oh man, I gotta say i dont like everything Donny says but this one is just fine.And the complaining over everything only makes the real important complaints diminished in value.
BM__They could have at least noted that Obama himself has noted the bill is going to significantly increase energy costs and has demanded that some of the tax windfall be diverted to subsidize energy for those who cannot afford his new taxes.
ME__Um who the frick cares if Obama says after he greatly increase taxes on energy he’ll redistribute even more of our money to those’less fortunate”.
you say that like its a good thing.
The post was obviously just a short one and could have included much more but didnt .
I think no matter what Donny puts out there are those like Brian who will find a way to tie it into being part of bigger “factional” battle.
BM__If we’re going to get on the topic of tax increases and deficits, where’s the LP press release condemning Republican hypocrisy? They’ve upped the size and scope of government, run trillions in deficits during the last 8 years, and suddenly they’re “small government deficit tea party” people?
Me__ Um I believe we are attacking the Obama administration because they are the ones who are in power right now. We had plenty of attacks on the Bush administartion and the failures of the GOP , but right now it’s timely to attack the Obama admin.I fail to see how that means we’re letting the GOP off the hook .
BM__The LP should nail the Teatards to the wall for their lack of principle
ME__what does this even mean in this instance?
how does this release have anything to do with a lack of principle. If you cry wolf over everthing then when there really is a wolf some folks might pay it no mind.
RL__Instead of attacking science and coming off as Republican lite, the LP should try to offer a different perspective, like saying that there are tools within the free market to solve environmental problems (paulie?), or something like that.
ME__ I agree had the article been longer that should have been included among other things.but I dont think it sounds Republican lite at all , its a short post about upcoming energy tax increases , period .
BM__We used to do that. But as of late, the LP seems to have preferred being a dumping ground for losers who flunked out of the Republican Party (Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Stewart Flood, Alicia Mattson, etc., etc., etc.)
ME__ Hey now I flunked out of the Dems , and thank god . Arent most of us converts from the other two parties? And if “they” are such losers how is it that “they” are in control as you seem to think?
seems to me if we want to toss around the term loser , its those who keep bitching but dont do what it takes to implement thier own leadership .
We “lost” in Denver fair and square . every officer you may not like was elected and my advice is this:
rather then keep pointing fingers at those who arent the Libs youd like to see in power , start recruiting those in your own image , make them credential friendly and come to the convention and win.
“There’s a simple solution to this. ”
correction:
“There might be a simple solution to this, depending on Donnie Ferguson’s heirarchy of values.”
“Write up future commentaries as you would like to see them and send it to Donny Ferguson at LPHQ.”
Ah, a recommendation that those who are in the right do work that may or may not yield any results, and may or may not be credited. This will fail most libertarians’ cost/benefit assessment.
“If he likes it, I’m sure he’ll make use of it.”
I, on the other hand, am not so sure. How about this, if it gets printed in a newspaper or gets ratings increases beyond a certain point on an agreed-upon libertarian site, then Donny will be obligated to use it. Otherwise, it’s simply a suggestion (from someone who has been rightly or wrongly accused of being “libertarian-lite”) for those who are not “libertarian-lite” to do busy work with an unlikely payoff.
My guess is that rather than send stuff to the LP HQ, those libertarians will post it here, at LFV, or at the Nolan Chart, and avoid Donny Ferguson’s “bullshit filter” which may or may not mirror their own.
Again: the solution I suggest is an objective standard that decentralizes the decision-making to “libertarian peer review”. I also prefer a ranking system that actually ranks things according to number of votes. If one doesn’t like the fact that votes can be redirected to a site like this, then increase the vote weight according to how many posts have come from the same IP address. If one doesn’t like the fact that votes can be redirected from newbies who are not actual libertarians, then increase the vote-weight of those who have been posting here the longest.
Those are a few ideas. If anyone wants to implement them, email me, and I can find you a talented web-programmer. 😀
If anyone would like to publish some here, maybe we can do that…
There’s a simple solution to this.
Write up future commentaries as you would like to see them and send it to Donny Ferguson at LPHQ.
If he likes it, I’m sure he’ll make use of it.
Instead of attacking science and coming off as Republican lite, the LP should try to offer a different perspective, like saying that there are tools within the free market to solve environmental problems (paulie?), or something like that.
We used to do that. But as of late, the LP seems to have preferred being a dumping ground for losers who flunked out of the Republican Party (Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Stewart Flood, Alicia Mattson, etc., etc., etc.)
So it’s no surprise they’re moving things in a GOPoseur direction.
Absolutely.
Attacking science? The LP is attacking the fascist state that you worship, Ross. The LP rails the GOP on social issues
Instead of attacking science and coming off as Republican lite, the LP should try to offer a different perspective, like saying that there are tools within the free market to solve environmental problems (paulie?), or something like that.
The LP’s commentary is getting really, really bad.
They could have at least noted that Obama himself has noted the bill is going to significantly increase energy costs and has demanded that some of the tax windfall be diverted to subsidize energy for those who cannot afford his new taxes.
A calculation of tax impact would also be good, along with an explanation of the source and use of tax increases.
The LP National Office and some major state LPs (California) have become incredibly sloppy and slapdash in their research and too comfortable parroting talking points from Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Scarborough.
If we’re going to get on the topic of tax increases and deficits, where’s the LP press release condemning Republican hypocrisy? They’ve upped the size and scope of government, run trillions in deficits during the last 8 years, and suddenly they’re “small government deficit tea party” people?
The LP should nail the Teatards to the wall for their lack of principle.
Unfortunately, I expect to see that around the same time that Shane Corey apologizes to Mary Ruwart.