Austin's Onerous "Point-of-Sale" Moves Forward

Chris Lehman wrote an fawning op-ed for onerous, costly mandates on homeowners today in the Statesman. Homeowners will be stuck paying the bill for an unwarranted intrusion on our rights as homeowners and the Sierra Club are cheerleaders for this idiocy. The other cheerleaders are the boneheads on City Council.
First, he talks about "how Austin can succeed in the challenge of climate protection." It needs to be pointed up front that nothing Austin does or doesn't do will add up to a hill of beans when it comes to climate change. Yes Austin could cut CO2 by shutting down La Grange and replacing that source with nuclear energy (oops, Council missed that opportunity). Even if we assume the dubious worst-case scenarios, Austin's impact on global CO2 increment, even if the City forces $100 million in in the next 10 years is so small it will not be noticed at all.

The total global temperature has gone up less than 0.6C in the last 60 years, and this represents the maximum of man's incluence on climate thus far (although some will argue credibly that some of this 0.6C is natural variation in climate). This what the entire globe's CO2 production since the dawn of the industrial revolution has wrought: 0.6C. And has not gone up at all in the past ten. What will Austin's contribution, if reduced by 10% in the next 10 years add up to? 0.19 x .1 x .0001, or 19 millionths of a degree. Will you notice a change in nineteen-millionths of a degree? Is it really worth it to force homeowners to spend tens of millions of dollars, for a few millionths of a degree?

Those who say yes to such a deal are more than welcome to make these costly additions to their own homes, to set an example if you wish. If they have an energy-hungry mansion like Gore has, they could put the kind of environmental friendly home features that President Bush put on his Crawford Ranch and pave the way for being eco-trend setters.

Lehman touts a "recommendation was that the state upgrade every building constructed before 1985 to meet modern energy efficiency standards." Well, it's just that - a recommendation. To turn a recommendation from another state into an excuse for regulation here is absurd. Commercial and residential homeowners have many other expenses and costs. Does it make sense to force homeowners to make energy upgrades when selling, when the buyer may have completely different ideas that rip out major parts of the house and undo those forced upgrades? I would think not. After all, many buyers want to refinish and redo the house they; those who bought our southwest Austin house in 2005 put in new windows. It's absurd to make seller pay thousands for wasteful upgrades that get turned away.

Regulation does dumb stuff like that. It forces people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. And since most people are adults and have limited funds, what it invariabily forces people to do are things that don't make sense. If energy efficiency is cost-effective and sensible, people would do it. When it is too costly and not cost-effective (like solar panels), people stay away from it.

Austin Energy can and should consider it a community stakeholder activity to educate and encourage on energy efficiency. They already do that and that's why we voluntarily got an energy audit on our home 10 years ago. It helped us reduce our energy usage and do some sensible things.

Dictation regulations like this treat adults like children, and are further insulting us by telling us it will matter when, in the grand scheme of climate change and environment, it doesnt matter at all. They only difference really will be the dollars and cents. A simple rule - If it doesn't save you any dollars as a homeowner, it doesn't make any sense - not to you, not to the city, not to Planet Earth.

City Council: Educate and encourage, but don't dictate!

PS. An email that came our way on this topic - and reminds us there is a runoff where the #1 issue is the point-of-sale mandates:

Last night, Wed May 21, the task force voted to approve a recommendation that will require the upgrades if the city doesn't reach minimal goals. The goals are VERY HIGH, and unrealistic, essentially voting for MANDATORY ENFORCEMENT!

You will have to get a certificate or permit before you can sell your home. You will have to slash $thousands from your value before selling. The article below puts an interesting "spin" on how nice this will be. How affordable. What happens when the inspector finds out-of-code electrical wiring? What happens when ADA (Americans for Disabilities Act) upgrades are required as is being considered NOW? How much can we require young couples to pay for these upgrades to own a home of their own? Or the seller (probably you) to come off of value? Make up your own mind.

This will be decided by the Austin City Council probably in the Fall. Defend your home now. Cid Galindo is against this ordinance. Laura Morrison is for it. There is a runoff on June 14th.

Candidates to reform the PEC - Stratton and more

The clubbiness at the Perdenales Electric Cooperative (PEC) board of directors won't ever be the same. After getting exposed for many malefactions and inside deals, the PEC board president resigned, the director elections have been opened up, and reformers have started running for BoD positions. A normally sleepy non-vote is actually worth looking into for Perdenales Electric customers.

One of reformers to vote for is Eric Stratton, running in PEC District 3. He is well deserving of support. As for the other districts, we got a rundown that we will pass along:

DISTRICT 2 (VOTING) - Sandy Jenkins (one of the first Republicans in Burnet County, wife to founder of ABC Pest Control) OR Glenn van Shellenbeck (founder of Van's Autoparts, one of the original plaintiffs on the lawsuit that opened things up in the first place)

DISTRICT 7 (VOTING) - Linda Kaye Rogers (one of the original members who raised heck and helped spur reforms in the first place; supported by former Hays County Commissioner Susie Carter)

DISTRICT 5 (ADVISOR) - Paul Langston (former Marine who worked for an energy company and also was one of the original members who raised heck and helped spur reforms in the first place)

DISTRICT 6 (ADVISOR) - NOT Charles Tessor (out of the country currently on business; concern he's too busy to dedicate the time to it); NOT Dave Bethancourt (part of the "good ol' boys" club of Hays County)

Bloated Farm Bill

Via Farm Policy website: Dan Morgan reported in today’s Washington Post that, "A major new program in the recently enacted farm bill could increase taxpayer-financed payments to farmers by billions of dollars if high commodity prices decline to more typical levels, administration and congressional budget officials said yesterday.

“The potential costs came to light as administration officials pored over details of the 673-page, $307 billion legislation. President Bush has promised to veto the measure, which he called ‘bloated.’ The House and Senate passed the bill by bipartisan margins large enough to override him unless dozens of lawmakers switch sides."

A call to action: Get the Senate and House to sustain Bush's veto. $300 billion for farm programs is an absurd amount with such high food prices.

Study on Ethanol shows it increased corn price 40%

Wow, what a misleading headline: Yet Another Study Confirms Ethanol’s Minimal Effect On Retail Food Prices, but in fact it shows the direct influence ethanol has had on grain prices:

Ethanol's demand for corn is a factor, Perrin said, but it needs to be taken in perspective. Grain prices have roughly doubled in the last two years, Perrin said. His calculations found that ethanol is responsible for about 40 percent of that increase.

40% of a doubling is a 40% increase. Ethanol subsidies, on top of socking it to taxpayers, force us to pay more for grain. So the headline should have read: Study on Ethanol boondoggle shows it increased corn price 40%. And it should further warn us that it is just the start - the 2007 ramps up ethanol mandates considerably.

Then they say: "Doubled grain prices contributed about 3 percent to the increase in U.S. food prices; 40 percent of 3 percent comes to about 1.2 percent." .. This looks like a case of how to lie with statistics, I suppose. The retail prices have a lot of non-food related markup, in particular they have risen because the price of oil is adding to agriculture and transportation costs. Now if ethanol was really a winner, it would be lowering the oil prices to balance the higher food prices. Didn't happen. To say ethanol is not mainly responsible for *retail* prices is silly. It's like saying ethanol is okay because it didnt raise the price of movie tickets.

It is further doubtful the study properly is measuring the real impact from the spillover from higher corn demand and higher corn production displacing many other grain production and thereby increasing their prices as well. This is a global phenomenon, made worse by the fact that Europe has also gone 'whole hog' for bio-fuels.

So to conclude: 1. Ethanol adds to grain prices. 2. Ethanol costs taxpayers billions. 3. Ethanol does nothing to keep the price of oil low. So why oh why are we wasting money on ethanol?

The Decline and Fall of the Family in Western Civ

When a future Gibbon writes of how Western Civilization declined and fell, losing its grip on civilizational leadership, the destruction of the biological mother-and-father married-with-children nuclear family will surely figure prominently. Today, Western Europe and white America are so far below replacement rate, in 100 years, Europe will be a tiny minority in the world. Yet the headlong rush to societal suicide through the destruction of the traditional family continues apace.

Case #1 in the UK: MPs voted to remove the requirement that fertility clinics consider a child’s need for a father and at the same time voted to keep abortion on demand up 24 weeks.

Case #2 in California was the recent unwarranted judicial decision to overturn the people's will, disregard the rights of children to be raised by a Mother and Father, and abolish all distinctions in law in California favorable to traditional marriage-based family.

"The slippery slope has been greased. If two men can marry, why not more than two? Are laws against polygamy also a violation of our constitutional rights? Was the Texas cult legal? There you had a lot of people in a committed relationship raising a lot of children. Heterosexual marriage is not some Right-wing plot to deny homosexuals their rights. It’s an institution sanctioned by all successful nations and cultures because of a compelling interest in a stable, growing society with heterosexual marriage providing a sturdy framework for both procreation and the orderly upbringing of children—the future of any society. Opponents of the decision will try to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. That may be the only way to ensure that activist judges don’t further unravel the fabric of society and that government of the people has not become government by just four people." —Investor’s Business Daily, via Patriot Post

"It took just four activist judges to overturn the historical definition of marriage, not to mention the vote of more than 4.5 million Californians. By a 4-3 margin the justices struck down a law adopted by 61% of voters in 2000, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman … the California Supreme Court knowingly usurped the right of the people to effect change in public policy. This outcome is even more troubling than Massachusetts." -Family Research Council

When it comes to what to do about activist judges who pervert the law, Lincoln had it right: "We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.

Economies of Scale in Nuclear Power

Energy from Thorium blog cites Rod Adams in saying Small is better for getting down the nuclear power experience curve. I had my own comment.

I hit on these factors: Thermal efficiency; operating costs/kwh; materials cost per Kilowatt; Lower fuel costs via higher burnup rates and simpler fuel cycles; Lower engineering costs per Kwh via repeatable and simplified design. I said "It may be neither big nor small that is the issue but - repeatable, simple, high efficiency /high temp, high power density, inherently safe/easier to run, better fuel burnup - that are the factors. If a smaller design hits those points - then it wins."

It occured to me that many are touting solar and wind as CO2 mitigation solutions, and are expecting an 'experience curve' and technology improvement benefit in these technologies to make them cost-competitive. They are not economically competitive today. Yet nuclear technology could be on such a curve, although it's 1970s technologies like PWR and BWR that are the workhorses even today for nuclear reactors. Nuclear's future may lie with different technologies: Pebble-bed, molten-salt and lead-cooled reactors, for example. The Energy from Thorium blog has a lot of outside-the-box thinking about nuclear power that may be essential for a 21st century nuclear power technology base.

UT's race-based admissions challenged

Judge considers legality of UT's admission policy. A lawsuit seeks to bar university's use of race, ethnicity. That is, they are asking UT to do the right thing. Why do we need to spend taxpayer dollars to figure this out? Why isn't the Chancellor fired for even thinking this crazy race-based admission policy is a good idea?

Some reaction:

I look forward to the day when neither race nor gender is used as criteria for admissions or scholarships to institutions of higher learning. In our attempt to be inclusive, we end up excluding many otherwise deserving students. My two children are first generation African/American citizens (Algerian descent), yet because they are white, they do not qualify for any of the programs children of color receive. They are equally deserving when evaluated on performance or need alone, but when the criteria includes color as a consideration, they are excluded. I believe we should give merit when it is earned or deserved, and a leg-up to anyone who meets entry qualifications but is excluded due to finances. Good grades, financial need, and community involvement are a better gage of merit and character than genetics that are beyond the individuals control.

More comments:

A pure merit-based system would be fair. People are unhappy because their kid does better and is more qualified than another kid, yet the other kid gets accepted due to skin color or where they went to school. A system that judges people based on their race, to either exclude or favor, is biased and wrong. Diversity programs are breeding grounds for racist policies. Discrimination is still discrimination, no matter who does it or for what reason, and its still wrong.

Legally and morally speaking, UT's race-based acceptance process is wrong and defies the intention of both the 1996 and 2003 rulings. UT should be ashamed of themselves for allowing policies that are racist and subject applicants to violations of their civil rights.

AISD Hosts Racially Segregated Event

Hispanic only award ceremony for top Hispanic AISD students. Is there a separate black-only and white-only event too? No word on that. Check the reactions.

Curing The Republican Funk

The arc of Republican status in the U.S. Congress in the past 16 years has gone from out-of-power minority to majority and back, a truly Greek epic: Minority status begat Resolution begat Strategies to Win begat Vigor begat Victory begat Accomplishment begat Satisfaction begat Complacency begat Corruption begat Isolation begat Defeat begat Loss of faith begat ... the GOP funk.

In the aftermath of the 2006 election, GOP insiders knew that reviving the Republican brand was critical. Understanding and doing are two different things, and the Republicans failed to get things right and got whacked in special Congressional elections in the past month, losing traditionally Republican seats. And here the GOP funk remains. Congressional Republicans face a rout in November if they don't turn things around.

The simple calculus is this: Many people, despite low unemployment and a war in Iraq that is being won, feel we are on the 'wrong track', and are blaming Republicans. Never mind the reality that We are on the wrong track because we are on the leftist track. The Democrats are the majority in Congress, yet are managing to evade the responsibility for the Democrat majority's incompetence, bad policies, and corruption. The media is too in love with Obama to inform people that we even have a Democrat majority in Congress, let alone that they are larding up every spending bill with pork; putting in tax increase after tax increase; socking it to investors; attempting cut-n-run from Iraq; etc.

There is an opportunity, if only the Republicans weren't too spineless to stop being pork-barrellers themselves. More than half of Republicans in Congress are going along with the budget-busting Farm subsidies bill this week, defying Bush's sensible veto threat of this literal "pork" bill. $300 billion wasteful Government spending over 5 years. A complete and total waste of money, made more egregious by the fact that grain prices are at all-time highs. The spirit is willing, the flesh is weak, and the GOP brand is sullied by such acts of political pandering. Nobody can out-pander Democrats, and to be a Republican panderer is like being a short NBA player, or a deaf violinist, or one-legged tap-dancer; you'll never win.

All a conservative is left with if the Republicans don't re-secure their appeal is the sure knowledge that, as bad as the Republicans might be, the Democrats are worse. Alas, consider the many, many under 30 voters who don't remember how bad the Democrats can get when given power. They are more than willing to listen to Democrat campaign lies instead of Republican campaign excuses, and make us relive the painful experience.

One real solution is a return to core conservative values, as expressed by a man who was around the last time the Democrats had a free ride of House, Senate and Presidency for 4 years:

“We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people... Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home... The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when? Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society. Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business... frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs. Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.” —from Ronald Reagan’s “New Republican Party”

Or we can look to Newt Gingrich who says bluntly:
"Faced with these election results, the House Republicans should hold an emergency members-only meeting. At the meeting, they should pose this stark choice: Real change or certain defeat. ... No Republicans should kid themselves. It's time to face up to a stark choice. Without change we could face a catastrophic election this fall." He calls for 9 planks of change to act on immediately:

• Repeal the gas tax for the summer, and pay for the repeal by cutting domestic discretionary spending.
  
• Redirect the oil being put into the national petroleum reserve onto the open market.
  
• "Introduce a "more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security bill" as a replacement for the Warner-Lieberman "tax and trade" bill which is coming to the floor of the Senate in the next few weeks."
  
• Establish an earmark moratorium for one year and pledge to uphold the presidential veto of bills with earmarks through the end of 2009.
  
• Declare English the official language of government.
  
• Overhaul the census and cut its budget radically.
  
• Protect the workers' right to a secret ballot.
  
• Implement a space-based, GPS-style air traffic control system.
  
• Remind Americans that judges matter.
  

It's time for the Republicans to Be Bold ... or they will be gone.

Obama naive and wrong on Military policy

Obama Promises to Dismantle Our Armed Forces says Robert Maginniss, as he takes apart the absurdity and naivity of Obama's declarations on military spending:

Senator Obama’s national security views expressed in his 52-second video reflect that of a knee-jerk liberal academic who thinks that the US is the primary threat to world peace. His views are dangerously naive and his statements suggest a shallow understanding of national security issues and in some cases his facts are wrong.

PS: Another endorsement for Obama: Young Communists for Obama - "As Communists, we have to finish the task of isolating the ultra-right and completely removing them from power—using the Democrats to finish the job. ... In Chicago YCL members were very active in the Youth for Obama efforts."

Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War

Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War. Those war-waging immigrants are Muslim immigrants who have contempt for Swedish law, Swedish culture and Swedes themselves. The lesson is: Weak-on-crime plus multi-culturalism plus unlimited immigration = Attacks on your people and your culture.

Will America repeat the mistakes of Sweden? Barack Obama is a weak-on-crime open-borders multiculturalist. hmmmm.

Climate Models Attack Polar Bears

The EPA decided to list the polar bear as 'endangered'. The threat to polar bears is due to the threat of climate models.

Let me explain. The polar bear population is increasing:

"Although the global population of polar bears has grown from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today, Mr. Kempthorne said government scientists had advised him that computer modeling projects "a significant population decline" by the year 2050."

The polar bear was not listed based on FACTS, it was listed based on MODELS. Fearmongering grew last summer when arctic sea ice melted, but then winter happened. Arctic sea ice is above normal for the past 20 years, indicating no real downtrend in sea ice, meaning no real, proximate or even presumed threat to the polar bears.

The only threat is due to the models that supposedly show fewer polar bears in 40 years. Those models have ALREADY been proven WRONG in projecting temperature. Models are wrong in Antarctica, and models have wrongly predicted
warming for the last 10 years that has not happened.

Listing the polar bears was unnecessary and wrong. The polar bear cannot conceivably be threatened by anything in nature in terms of its habitat (and sea ice loss, even if it were happening is not such a loss). So what's to blame? The models! Get rid of the wrong and phony models, and the polar bears will live in peace, unmolested.

UPDATE 5/21: Lindzen - the case against climate alarmism. An article that assesses the climate models and finds data that shows water vapor and cloud feebacks are more negative than climate models assume.

NO-BAMA

Just say NO-BAMA. Go there for all Obama, all the time.

CORRECTION to post of letter to editor

CORRECTION
RE:> The Letter to the editor, titled Don’t Ask, Don't Tell.
It was posted on the Travis Monitor on 05/03/08 as REJECTED,
having been submitted to Statesman on 4/21/08.
However, it was later PUBLISHED on 5/08/08

Congratulations: Your Pork Wins!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDQkjZZq_cU

This youtube spoof was put together in response to this initial blog post:

Congratulations: Your Pork Wins!

Submitted by MQSullivan on the Empower Texans blog on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:25am.

Seriously, way to go TxDOT. Sure, you guys miscounted $1 billion. You've
said you cannot build roads again because you're broke. But, hey, you did just
win 15 excellence in advertising awards!

According to the Texas Government Insider, TxDOT received the award from something called the "American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators." Even bureaucrats need to pat themselves on the back sometimes.

The ads getting the awards were for promoting vehicle registration.
And, gee, I thought the big expiration date and threat of getting ticket from a
burly state trooper were already fairly effective advertising...

No word on what these advertisements cost -- and it'd probably make us
shudder if we knew -- but Mr. and Mrs. Texas, take a bow for your generous
financing. Just try not to think how many lane-miles could be built, or traffic
reduced, with the dollars the state has spent on various advertising programs
over the years.

Think of it this way: Our frivolous spending was a lot better than any
other state's frivolous spending!

A response to AGW Fearmongerer McKibben

McKibben opines about the need for 350ppm CO2 an extremist and unnecessary goal. I respond in a letter-to-LATimes:

Bill McKibben's op-ed that claims we are at a climate "tipping point" is alarmist nonsense. In 1988, McKibben predicted in a book that global warming would raise temperatures by 0.8C by 2000. It never happened. The global temperature readings are no higher this April 2008 than twenty years ago (based on RSS MSU measurements) .

Although disproven, McKibben keeps predicting doomsday. We have 380 ppm CO2 and increasing,
but in the last ten years, the globe has stopped warming and in the past year the world has been cooling.
Recent data is showing that Antarctica is not losing ice mass overall, and will not lose ice in any realistic climate change scenario for centuries; further, has been a lot cooler than climate models predicted.
Arctic ice is right now above mean levels of the last 30 years, and the sea level increase that was advancing a tiny 2mm per year, has stopped. This all means the "massive sea level rise" McKibben speaks of is a myth based on false speculation. It won't happen, just like his predicted warming didn't happen. The extreme scenarios he touts have been disproven by the actual temperature record.

McKibben is fear-mongering on the basis of models that are inaccurate, predictions that never happened, and a crisis that isn't there. As the real data comes in and disproves the doomsayers wrong, they get more desperate to get us to act before we realize the crisis is concocted.

It's time we put fear in the backseat and put facts in the front seat on climate change. Man-made global warming is not a crisis, and those who claim it is are fear-mongering.

Local Election Results for Austin City Council Races

The Travis County Clerk's Office has the results for the May 10 election posted.

Total voter turnout: 8.45 %

Place 1:
Lee Leffingwell (incumbent) 66.7%
Allan Demling 11.3%
Jason Meeker 22%

Place 3:
Jennifer Kim (incumbent) 27.8%
Randi Shade 62.2%
Ken Weiss 10.1%

Place 4:
Cid Galindo 30.3% *
Laura Morrison 36.9% *
Ken Vasseau 2.3%
Jennfier Gale 7.7%
Sam Osemene 4.6%
Robin Cravey 18.2%

* Galindo and Morrison will be in a run-off.