It's ironic that CSU is doubling down on burning more coal which is causing global warming. Global warming has and will continue to cause record summer temperatures and ultimately more wild land fires.
Finally, it is a non-sequitor to believe that a Investor Owned Utility would not have responded in the same way during an emergency. Wild land fires occur in San Diego and Los Angeles on a regular basis and the IOU's work promptly and professionally to restore service.
Dave, you're most welcome.
There's a new book out by James Kunstler called Too Much Magic. Though a bit extreme in his predictions and descriptive language, he makes a case that we are in "The Long Emergency" where the world's massive population is causing resource depletion and leading us to a major "contraction," from which we simply cannot invent our way of as we have in past crises, and that we can't even forge a consensus on what to do about it (gridlock in Congress and acrimony over Global Warming / Climate Change).
Meanwhile, author Michael Klare tells us is in "The Race for What's Left" that earth's resources are largely gone and competition (war?) for resources will intensify. Author Stephen Leeb made the same case in "The Oil Factor" back in 2003.
A good discussion of the issues derived from the people problem (and relevant books) is found in this article: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2…
OldCrank, I think that's pretty accurate. Thanks for the productive discourse.
Dave, hello. I got a flavor that Wattenberg was whining a bit about not maintaining the kind of growth rates that keep the economy humming along, something in the 3% rate, and that he was predicting bad outcomes from such a declining birth rate. Too bad for MacDonald's and Disney, eh.
I also got the flavor that we the people, world over, aren't going to go out and multiply to please the wealthy masters who want billions of excess workers on the scrap heap of labor.
I was pleased to learn from his book that birth rates are falling in all nations; even 3rd world types are getting educated about birth control and the lessening need for large families.
You don't think I made my case? What about your case? I was simply pointing out the fact that you said nothing that made sense relative to overpopulation as well as your somewhat obvious attempt to push your liberal agenda i.e., you and Sandra Fluke's desire to have her neighbor pay for here birth control. Now, I don't have a problem with birth control (or reasonable abortion for that matter). I just don't think it right to force people that do not agree with that position to pay for it. Is that so unreasonable?
As to your grandiose proclamation that you want to "...leave our children a world worth inheriting" , doesn't everyone? And if so, wasn't your statement a bit pompous?
I would submit, if you are really serious about saving the world, you vote for anyone other than obama.
Smartestman, sure I have an agenda (and it is simple): to leave for our children a world worth inheriting. I don't think you made your case, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't think it moves us toward a solution. Thanks for reading and responding.
Your conclusions "What is keeping us from doing this" are simplistic and agenda based, to say the least. Let's break it down:
Your first example: "it just takes a little information" The people that actually care have embraced population growth since the 50's. What is left are people that do not care (mostly in third world countries) and people that believe more offspring is the way to advance their particular cause.
Your second example: Same answer as #1
Your third example: "our culture's addiction to growth". Once again, it is not "our culture" that is the problem, at least with respect to population growth.
And lastly: "ultra-conservative attack on funding of family planning" your true agenda sneaks out and it is pretty smelly. (This appears to have absolutely nothing to do with birth control and everything to do with the government paying for it. One wonders if you get your cue from Miz Fluke.)
I, for one, believe the UN numbers are understated. I think the population of the world will double in the next 50 years. Since we will not have figured out quantum physics by then in order to get us off of this planet, the world, as we know it, will cease to exist.
Now, the religious nut jobs (currently the Muslims) may indeed cause a world war prior to the 50 year scenario, and overpopulation (at least for a short period of time) will be protracted.
OldCrank, I read Fewer and found it wanting. Wanting more people, that is. Did that not bother you?
Ben Wattenberg authored a fine book called "FEWER" about demographics and population change, which is excellent reading material. Check the review on Amazon:
Myself, I stopped at zero children, no need to add to the squirming masses. If we can get the population down to parity with available jobs on this planet, we should be able to achieve a living wage for most humans instead of the current misery.
More than ever we need organizations like Planned Parenthood to disseminate quality information about family planning, birth control and associated products. At the same time we must ignore nonsense from Popes and all religious zealots that work to deny people access to birth control and reproductive rights.
Thanks to the Indy for publishing this. I've posted a little more detailed version under Population News at www.worldpopulationday.org
so you say the people saying anything - are liars? - great role models!
Excellent response, Mr. Guman!
Mr. Allen raises some very valid points. Many of the "solutions" this community needs to move forward have at some point already been thought of and evaluated by visionaries and volunteers.
Many of the work products drafted by these same visionaries and volunteers bear names like "The 2020 Plan," "Dream City," "Downtown Action Plan," "The Comp Plan," etc. Each was enthusiastically prepared by many dozens of well-intended visionaries. Each was presented to various entities including blue ribbon committees, boards, commissions, and city councils. And many wound up on a shelf in the City Administration Building destined to collect dust, or until someone comes forward wanting to reinvent the wheel.
Colorado Springs already has a strategic plan. We have multi-year master redevelopment plans and agendas with plenty of good and relevant information that can be extrapolated and worded-crafted for ballot initiatives for the next hundred years.
Our problem is not that we lack for visionaries, or that we do not have enough well qualified candidates for local public offices. We do not need more study groups or "solution teams." Rather, we need more "implement people" with enough fortitude who will commit to following through on the many ideas that have already been thought of and lauded by community leaders. More taxes is not the answer. Taking all those plans off the shelves, dusting them off, and following through is perhaps the best place to start.
Okay, so this guy is cheeky. I get it. I back slowly away when hair-gelled military brats come bouncing through my town with hundreds of dollars of hiking gear strapped to their 24-hour fitness - shaped bodies.
But I digress. The Incline causes traffic problems and parking issues and brings relatively little economic benefit to the town. And if the people that live along Ruxton who can't park their cars (imaginary or otherwise) don't like it, should we listen to the local TAX PAYERS or those that use the incline and feel they are entitled to it for free? It's free now because it's illegal.
I use it occasionally, and I would never drive from my house across the valley, even though it adds another 4 miles to an already grueling climb. Parking (and even just driving through) is so bad on most days, and getting worse. I feel for those who live along Ruxton. This town and its its treasures belong to the people who call it home. And we are all happy to share it, but we cannot allow our town to be overrun simply to bring even MORE tourists and thrill seekers. Keep it WEIRD.
Last week, our Utilities Board rejected the 50 MW of wind despite widespread community support for including it in our energy portfolio.
Ideally, CSU would function as a power broker, selling and distributing electricity generated by people's homes, not by giant industrial energy facilities, be they fueled by coal, natural gas, solar or wind. We need distributed generation that makes peoples lives better, not energy generation controlled through corporate and government bottlenecks.
Many of us have been working on getting this wind power added to the CSU portfolio for more than four years. We gathered hundreds of petitions with thousands of signatures and put them on a waiting list at CSU. The council's recent vote is nothing but a betrayal! Apparently, sustainability means nothing to them.
Great job, Emily. Climate change is happening and CSU needs to make the environment as important or more important than rates. The Environment is one of their 3 mandates - reliability, environment and rates but they never seem to step up to the plate and make the decisions the vast majority (80 and 85%) is asking for. Especially when we're only talking about 1 or 2 % and the overwhelming majority is ready to pay it. How do we wake the council/board up?
It's been an uphill battle since Reagan took Carter's solar panels off the Whitehouse.
As for the "getting something back for our investment"... you DO get something back. You get the 4000+ employees that buy groceries, pay taxes, buy houses, buy cars, go to the movies, get their hair cut, and pump all that money in the economy of the city. If a for-profit (HCA) were to come in, count on the fact that 1000+ of those employees would be cut off the top - then they'll start cutting the services (NICU, PICU) that don't make money....Don't be fooled by that 1billion dollar commitment. It's all sparkle and big numbers. That 1 billion investment is over 40 years - which at a small sum of $25M a year is not nearly enough to keep the hospital growing as it's done over the last 100 years. Why would we "sell out" to HCA, get the $325M to put in a trust for the healthcare for the citizens ... only to turn around and pay HCA that money back to PROVIDE that care? As it a non-profit, Memorial would continue to provide the indigent care that it has in the past.... and did you realize that the "investment" you've made provides $77M per YEAR to the city of Colorado Springs? That should put some of those flashy numbers in perspective. They look nice, but when you really sit back and realize the impact that the for-profit will have on the economy, they get small in a hurry.
The minute the control of Memorial goes to a company other than Memorial (as a non-profit organization), you will definitely lose that asset... all the decisions will be made to satisfy the stakeholders..... not to provide the highest quality healthcare to the citizens of Colorado Springs.
All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation