Solar panels for everyone!
Kari Chisholm
This week, a group of legislators - committed to alternative energy - proposed a bold plan to use taxpayer funds to subsidize 100% of the cost of solar panels for every Oregon family.
Naturally, of course, Oregon Republicans reacted with shock and horror - decrying the "eco-socialism" of such an audacious plan for the greening of Oregon.
Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
This plan comes from Oregon's House Republicans.
That's right, folks. Oregon Republicans actually want to buy you solar panels for your house - with taxpayer dollars. And they're willing to pay for 'em, 100%.
From the Oregonian:
House Republicans offered their own plan today to stimulate Oregon's economy -- an eye-widening proposal to give huge tax breaks to homeowners and businessowners who want to remodel.The gist is a 50 percent tax credit for the cost of improvements. If the project is considered "green," such as installing solar paneling, the credit rises to 100 percent.
I'm quite certain that if Oregon Democrats proposed creating a program to spend taxpayer dollars on 100% subsidies for solar panel construction, the GOP would be literally freaking out.
So, what's the deal here?
Well, other than the basic fact that this is just an attempt to greenwash themselves, this is also a way to dress up a massive tax cut for wealthy individuals and businesses.
What's the difference between a tax credit program and a taxpayer-funded subsidy? On the surface, not much.
Except that if this were an actual budget spending item, it would have to be funded by actual revenues. Since Oregon can't run an operating deficit, an increase in spending has to be matched by either new revenues or cuts in other programs.
By proposing the exact same thing as a tax credit, the Republicans don't have to tell you how they'll pay for it. Instead, it'll just put a giant hole in the revenue stream - and the resulting spending cuts will appear to be unconnected.
In other words, it's a cynical ploy to use progressive language to achieve right-wing goals. It's just another way to "drown government in the bathtub".
Look at it another way: If this were a spending item, we'd be evaluating it in the context of other spending items. Are solar-panels-for-everyone more important than a full school year, or health care for uninsured children, or a well-funded criminal justice system, or any of the other important priorities? By proposing this idea as a tax credit, the Oregon GOP is taking the money off the top, before anything else is considered for funding.
How much of a joke is this?
Listen to their leader, Bruce Hanna, as he utterly fails to understand basic arithmetic. From the AP:
"This proposal will stimulate the economy and create jobs without increasing debt or wasting taxpayer dollars," House GOP Leader Bruce Hanna told reporters.
And the cynical math is only the beginning. After all, their proposal goes far beyond solar panels - and limits the tax credits to individuals that can afford to spend $10,000 or more on remodeling expenses (or $25,000 for businesses.) More on that from Mark Bunster at Loaded Orygun.
Fortunately, the legislature's Democrats are responding appropriately - calling it out as the joke that it is:
The proposal was quickly panned by Democrats. "The problems we face cannot be solved by tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy," said House Majority Leader Mary Nolan, D-Portland. "That's the road we've traveled for the last eight years -- the road that got us where we are today."
Well said, Mary.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
8:17 a.m.
Jan 31, '09
Yes! Solar panels for everyone!
If this Republican proposal focused only on solar and alternative energy projects and was paid for from bonds like the Oregon Democrats’ stimulus proposal, I prefer it to the Democrats’ proposal. I’d prefer to see Oregon invest in decentralized energy production more than the construction and deferred maintenance of state, community college, and university buildings.
Of course, the rhetoric of the Republicans is a bit of a slick shell game and a rewriting of the rules of economics. But there is a kernel of a useful idea there.
Further, I’m concerned that Oregon may be laying off teachers, professors, human service workers and others on state funding while constructing buildings, roads and bridges on federal and state funds, especially that the federal stimulus program will not match well with our needs in Oregon. Such would not be my priorities.
Jan 31, '09
Kari, please elucidate for the unwashed masses the difference between the democrats wanting to spend $100MM that the state doesn't have (via borrowing) and this republican proposal. Really Kari, you've been shilling for the uber left for so long that platitudes of cooperation for the good of ALL in our state are beyond you.
Solar panels are the ONE proven, ready to put in place technological alternative that would have an immediate impact on the oil based energy system. There is no reason that one couldn't place systems all over southern and eastern Oregon. Oh wait, that might create JOBS and SMALL Business in the hinterlands; thus allowing us poor rural hicks another opportunity to not be beholden to you cool cats in Portland.
Jan 31, '09
I would love it if this was to pass. The corporations continue to push for "alternative” energy sources only as long as it benefits them...i.e. centralized power supplies.
But I’m also not naïve enough to know what is going on here. Either in committee or if it ever somehow got to the floor, the Dems will have to vote no because of the cost, the Repubs will vote yes and come out awash in green.
Jan 31, '09
Kari, please elucidate for the unwashed masses the difference between the democrats wanting to spend $100MM that the state doesn't have (via borrowing) and this republican proposal.
May I, Kari?
Kurt, you're presumably talking about the bonding stimulus package. This number was not pulled out of thin air; the State Debt Policy Advisory Commission issues a report near the beginning of every session to let the Legislature know what the borrowing capacity is. Thanks to the failure of mega-spending initiatives and the Democrats' establishment of a rainy day fund, the state's credit rating has improved enough to borrow some cash for this stimulus. Of course the debt service amounts are still kept within strict limits, but guess what: EVERY BUDGET HAS DEBT SERVICE AMOUNTS ALREADY WORKED INTO IT.
Meanwhile, the Republican plan is essentially a huge spending package which, rather than leverages the general fund dollars, simply spends them on these projects. Noble projects, to be sure... but a piss-poor way to spend for them, because you end up spending money that was EARMARKED FOR OTHER PROGRAMS (like the State Police, Education, etc).
I hope that helps explain it, Kurt.
Jan 31, '09
I think that's a good analysis. Now, can Oregon Dems find a way to do this on the up-and-up? Take Reps drown gov in the bathtub attitude and toss in a hair dryer.
Jan 31, '09
We should not be subsidizing development of rich peoples homes. However, I do agree that a "solar-panels-for-everyone" is more important than a bloated criminal injustice system - we do not need more state troopers terrorizing our citizens - and a full year indoctrination program - instead, we need innovative charter schools and community schooling for low income neighborhoods. Their is a reason that Obama is sending his children to a Quaker school, not a public school. Health care for uninsured children needs to be prioritized as well.
This plan appears to be merely a tax cut for the well off. Yes, we need home and business weatherization (energy-efficiency) and solar panel incentives. Energy efficiency will cut the high costs of heating for low-income renters such as myself. The Republican proposal does not mention energy-efficiency. Kulongoski's proposal for significant highway improvements is a subsidy for Wallmart, Mexico and China. Instead, we must invest in a public transportation infrastructure and local organic food farms. We need an education infrastructure that supports training for green jobs and the support of the creation of collectives and cooperatives. We need an infrastructure that gives incentives to Oregonians to produce jobs for themselves, not for multinational corporations that will inevitably just move overseas.
Jan 31, '09
Independent alternative energy and conservation projects should be funded by loans available to all and not tax credits. The loans would be repaid by a KWH surcharge on all utility bills. Those that conserved energy would benefit while those that didn't would pay more. This would have many benefits, providing emergency backup power, reduce the need for more power plants and transmission lines, and contribute to local national security, are a few of the benefits.
11:35 a.m.
Jan 31, '09
Yes, this is a stupid idea. Just as stupid as the Democrats use of bond dollars for a slew of current expenditures.
But what I am left wondering is: What is the difference between "freaking out" and "literally freaking out?"
Jan 31, '09
partisanship = spitting in the face of a good idea just because the "other side" thought of it.
The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me. A lot of people really need to take a hard look in the mirror. You have become the people you despise.
Jan 31, '09
Why shouldn't Oregon become the solar capital of the USA. While I lived in AZ, I couldn't even put solar panels on my roof due to HOA restrictions. Are you kidding me. Arizona. No solar. You would have had a good laugh at their utter disbelief when that last solar company decided to locate in the metro area. (Can't recall which one it was.) They were dumbfounded as to why a solar company would go to Oregon and not sunny AZ.
12:11 p.m.
Jan 31, '09
I hate to ask a crass question in all this love of solar panels, but when does it actually pay for itself. My understanding is that in most of Oregon, as opposed to sunnier climes, solar panels cannot be economically justified. If they were we would all be using them. My understanding is that they don't pay for themselves in the rainy part of Oregon even with a healthy government subsidy.
12:30 p.m.
Jan 31, '09
I'd much rather have a wind turbine.
Jan 31, '09
@John:
here is a solar ROI calculator that might give you a rudimentary answer to your question.
Don't let Oregon's weather fool you, Germany is a world leader in solar deployment and their weather is like ours here.
Hope this helps.
Jan 31, '09
Dave Porter:
"Further, I’m concerned that Oregon may be laying off teachers, professors, human service workers and others on state funding while constructing buildings, roads and bridges on federal and state funds, "
Where is your source of information? Are you saying that when Peter Courtney started talking about this last year he should have been saying that the dirty little secret was they'd be laying off professionals to hire construction workers?
Or isn't that how bonding works?
Those beautiful new offices in the capitol wings were paid for by bonding (certificates of participation).
www.leg.state.or.us/mp/
This is a new way of doing things, perhaps.
If the Republican plan had an explicit funding source like the Senate passed stimulus package, I would take it seriously. But it sounds like more "trust us, we will find the money" like the Mystery Money crowd in the days of Measure 28 and Measure 30.
And exactly how does bonding to provide stimulus force the layoff of teachers?
Could it be that the budget squeeze forced by paying some school administrators more than $100,000 will have more impact on teacher employment than whether bonding creates jobs for building roads and fixing roofs and other things on state buildings?
Or are Republicans saying it is OK for roofs to crumble in order to make their point?
Jan 31, '09
This is like one of those third world countries that spends its tiny budget on flashy military toys and skyscrapers rather than investing in public health, education, and food security. You gotta do the basics first.
For 99% of us, there's nothing wrong with solar AFTER you've made all the preparatory investments that have a much bigger and faster payback -- tightening the house, reducing water usage, adding mucho insulation and weatherstripping, getting rid of recessed can lighting leaks (and high wattage lighting), adding thermal blinds, installing solar thermal hot water wherever possible, planting appropriate trees to block summer heat but allow winter warming, window awnings, etc. But adding solar electric as an add-on to most US homes without doing all that first is like putting a Ferrari engine in a Chevy Vega from the junk yard that you bought on eBay.
There's a bill in Salem to do the right thing, offered by Tobias Read and Jules Kopel Bailey. That's the useful bill to get behind. That bill would create a kind of pay-as-you-save program that would pay for these more fundamental and important investments and let people pay them off out of their savings.
Jan 31, '09
"There's a bill in Salem to do the right thing, offered by Tobias Read and Jules Kopel Bailey. That's the useful bill to get behind. That bill would create a kind of pay-as-you-save program that would pay for these more fundamental and important investments and let people pay them off out of their savings."
Bill number would be useful.
1:45 p.m.
Jan 31, '09
@LT, My frustration and concern is directed not so much at the state stimulus package as at the federal one. If the combined effect is that we end up laying off teachers, etc., while building roads, etc., then I will think that we Democrats have our priorities wrong. We Democrats control both the national and state government. The national government has more flexibility. Is it too much to ask that both stimulus packages be coordinated so that we are not laying off teachers, police, human service workers, etc. in Oregon? Is it too much to ask that we know the answer to this question before passing the bills? So part of my concern is the lack of information.
The lastest I heard on the projected budget deficit for the state of Oregon was $450-750 million in the five remaining months of this biennium and $2 billion for the 2009-11 biennium. Speaker Dave Hunt at his townhall meeting on Thursday did not think the federal stimulus would completely fill those budget deficits (many details were still incomplete and pending). This means, I think, that Oregon will be laying off teachers, etc. while both the federal and state governments fund construction projects. These, in my view, are not the best priorities for the state of Oregon's future.
Jan 31, '09
Kari, are you talking of solar water/space heating panels or solar electric?
The first makes sense, the second doe not.
Thanks
1:52 p.m.
Jan 31, '09
Thanks for the link Kari; I took it from the angle of Dennis Richardson's amusing letter to his constituents extolling the virtues of the program.
But I fear we've bought into the trickery here, and are allowing the GOP to claim that they have some kind of "solar energy" bill. That's hogwash. Maybe there will be some solar panels built, sure because the proposal doesn't have any specific incentives for "green energy" at all; it's simply a tax credit over five years for home or business renovation between $10,000 and $500,000. (One thing that occurs to me as a sidebar just now is, is that a household/business cap, or can you do as many 500K projects as you can afford, and get the credit every time? ) So you might as well call it the "parking lot subsidy bill," or the "high-volume hog farm shit pool subsidy bill" for all the greenness put in it. Yes, you do get a 50% bonus in your tax credit if it's "green," but I'd also love to see how they qualify that one; some people seem to be able to justify things like salvage harvesting of lumber as "green renovation."
This is a tax cut of unknown millions of dollars, from a budget that will be extraordinarily tight in the first place, that will go EXCLUSIVELY towards those who own a home or a business, and can afford to make remodels costing at least $10,000, in the next 7 months. And if they can't afford it, they have the collateral and credit to find someone to lend them the money to do it. This money will come right out of the existing revenue stream, in a zero-sum, dollar for dollar match with something else that needs funding--schools, public safety, transportation, whatever.
What is ironic to me, beyond the utterly bizarre desire of OR Republicans to emulate their federal brethren and position themselves as the opponents of economic recovery, is that their argument that pork and short term job stimulus is not as good as durable, long term stimulus does NOT lead you towards tax cuts as an incentive for jobs. It leads you towards a leaner, more targeted bill that goes TOWARDS the FDR ideal, not away from it. The GOP doesn't have the power in either OR or DC to force a bill with sizeable tax cuts instead of investment (although the Dems have the power to capitulate to it, as we've seen). The GOP blogosphere seems to be crowing about Democratic criticism of the current stimulus bill, as evidence Obama is failing. But a bill WILL get done, and if there are changes it won't be for more tax cuts, it will be for more targeted and specific infrastructure funding. Which is...all to the good for progressives, no? And who will be on the outside looking in? Your marginal, regional political party, the (US and OR) Republican Party.
1:55 p.m.
Jan 31, '09
OK, I followed the link from mp97303 above and this is what they said.
"It will take approximately 20 years to make profit. This takes into account federal rebates, property value increase and inflation of electricity prices at 5.4% anually."
In addition to the fact that the solar calculator has rotten grammar and cannot spell, a 20 year payoff after rebates just doesn't make economic sense. As someone who spent a lot of money on more expensive energy saving lightbulbs that were supposed to last much longer than regular lightbulbs, but in fact burned out faster, I remain dubious that any installation will last for 20 years.
2:16 p.m.
Jan 31, '09
@ John Calhoun,
If a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system were enacted, the cost of electricity would probably go up much faster than 5.4% per year, reducing substantially the payoff time.
Solar panels on individual homes have the added advantage of making us more resilient to power grid interruptions such as terrorists might launch.
Jan 31, '09
tedg's and Zara's suggestions can both be undertaken at the same time. We can walk and chew insulation at the same time.
Re: "Really Kari, you've been shilling for the uber left for so long that platitudes of cooperation for the good of ALL in our state are beyond you."
Yes, Kari, you, Obama, Merkley, et al, are so uber left that the rest of us seem to be uber right. Knock it off.
Jan 31, '09
@ LT: I agree. But, here's what the Oregon Conservation Network sent out instead (sans bill no.):
3:06 p.m.
Jan 31, '09
how annoying annoying. Double double sorry sorry for the extra extra post post.
Jan 31, '09
Dave Porter: If a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system were enacted, the cost of electricity would probably go up much faster than 5.4% per year, reducing substantially the payoff time. JK: The cap & trade goal is a 40% reduction in CO2, thus a 40% reduction in fossil fuel usage.
Just ask yourself what price of gasolene would FORCE Oregonians to use 40% less? That is the price you WILL pay. Also expect to pay more, even as you drive less. And don’t think transit will save you - it uses much more energy than hybrid cars. (Before you engage in a losing debate on this topic, have a look at PortlandFacts.com for the REAL data.)
What cost of electricity will FORCE Oregonians to use 40% less? That is the price YOU will pay. You will be using less and paying more.
What cost of natural gas will FORCE Oregonians to use 40% less? That is the price YOU will pay. You will not be able to afford to heat your home.
It is so sad that the progressives are proposing such madness, while there is a simple way to meet the 40% goal that actually reduces the cost of energy! Nuclear. (Reprocess the fuel like France and no more waste problem)
Dave Porter: Solar panels on individual homes have the added advantage of making us more resilient to power grid interruptions such as terrorists might launch. JK: So does a natural gas generator in the basement & a lot cheaper. Solar electric electricity costs close to TEN times what we currently pay. Is that what the progressives really want - to price electricity out of reach of middle income people?
BTW, where do we put enough solar panels to power compact neighborhoods, like the Pearl and SoWhat?
Thanks JK
4:21 p.m.
Jan 31, '09
@jk/billy
Not to rehash the global warming/climate change issue, but to do nothing about reducing carbon emission has enormous costs to us all as well. Not to reduce our use of oil from a variety of countries funding our enemies reduces our national security and send dollars abroad that we could better spend at home. So in advocating a substantial, revenue neutral gas tax, I consider myself a patriot, thinking of the welfare of his country and its people. And, yes, I think we all need to pay more for gasoline and electricity. Doing so will make us safer and richer. It's the smart thing to do.
6:29 p.m.
Jan 31, '09
A few points:
Mary Nolan was absolutely correct, the revenue shortfall cannot be solved by tax breaks for the wealthy and profitable corporations.
I find it amazing that the proposal was given the respect of any press coverage because when the proposed it, and then as of Friday afternoon, they still didn't know the cost. That should have been the story -- Republicans in the House call for a blank check spending program that they think is more efficient than the Democrats' proposal.
Kari wrote
Actually, that's exactly right and all of our tax credit programs, including the Business Energy Tax Credit and the Residential Energy Tax Credit (BETC and RETC) ought to be evaluated that way too. My bet is that if the Energy Department went to the legislature seeking funding to put solar collectors on homes of Oregon's wealty, build windfarms to sell power to California, or create loan programs that allow banks to earn 56 percent return on investment over five years, the leg would find other priorities, especially under our current fiscal situation.
6:36 p.m.
Jan 31, '09
One more point.
John Calhoun asks "when does it actually pay for itself." That's not really the issue -- with solar, and even more so with conservation investments, they not only start to pay for themselves from day one, but after a while they are turning a profit!
That's what makes the concept of taxpayer subsidies for profitable businesses so silly -- they invest in conservation and it starts paying back immediately and at some point is providing pure profit. That's compared to other capital investments that maybe don't lower daily operating costs, like a new roof or machinery that allows you to produce a new product.
Jan 31, '09
JK wrote: Just ask yourself what price of gasolene would FORCE Oregonians to use 40% less? That is the price you WILL pay. Also expect to pay more, even as you drive less. And don’t think transit will save you - it uses much more energy than hybrid cars.
I have a question about that. Does your claim that hybrid cars are more efficient than public transit factor in what would be much higher ridership numbers (improved efficiency) if gas costs were to the point where people used 40% less?
JK wrote: So does a natural gas generator in the basement & a lot cheaper.
I have a question about that, too. Does your suggestion assume that natural gas will continue to be plentiful to the point that natural gas costs won't rise regardless of a carbon tax?
And, while I agree with you that nuclear (French style!) power is probably a good solution for several decades (full speed ahead, please!), I have a question about that. Are you suggesting that Uranium and other radioactive isotopes are to be found in quantities such that their cost won't eventually skyrocket? Hasn't Uranium increased in price quite a bit over the last few decades?
When I look at it, I don't think today's solar panels are an ideal solution, but most of Earth's energy comes from the Sun, and we won't run out of sunlight (barring massive volcanic activity, strangely persistent clouds, etc). We may as well learn to use it.
9:19 p.m.
Jan 31, '09
Rob Kremer: the difference is the word "literally." Either that, or Republicans would be growing third eye-stalks, breaking out spontaneously in 1970s disco dance moves (so chic) etc., as opposed to figuratively freaking out as in saying "I'm, like [n.b. simile], freaking out, man."
The Read-Kopel Bailey approach sounds reasonably interesting.
However, maybe Democrats should consider taking this up more directly, in two ways.
1) Depending on an analysis of benefits and opportunity costs, consider offering up a clean "solar panels for all" bill, that would not be a decoy to disguise what is essentially a bill to subsidize cappuccino conservatives (and latté liberals too, I suppose) in remodeling McMansions for the benefit of contractors.
2) Look at this in terms of extending the principles Read & Kopel-Bailey are pursuing from homeowners to renters and their landlords.
I.e. look at encouraging investment in energy efficiency retro-fitting, and possibly also for upgrading housing that's substandard in other respects in rental properties.
This could get tricky in terms of raising property values leading to higher rents turfing out renters I guess. But there's a big chunk of inefficiency that neither renters nor landlords have incentives to address now.
<hr/>Slightly off-topic, at the economic crisis town hall meeting today, Rep. Michael Dembrow (HD 45 NE Portland) in addressing a healthcare reform panel mentioned something interesting about a proposal that's being worked on to impose some kind of provider fee to extend OHP coverage. Evidently there is a pool of a large number of millions of federal dollars for which Oregon is eligible if it puts up matching funds, but currently lacks the means to get them.
This seems like something well worth pursuing, from several points of view: health efficiency; care cost efficiency forestalling more expensive later treatment; a form of employment stimulus that would affect a sector with a large degree of female employment, absence of which is a major problem in many of the infrastructure-oriented proposals; and maybe, I'm less sure about this, opening up a little more breathing room in the competition among various needs.
The indirect connection to this post is that it is about revenue sources and stimulus.
Feb 1, '09
mc:
would love it if this was to pass. The corporations continue to push for "alternative” energy sources only as long as it benefits them...i.e. centralized power supplies.
Bob T:
I always get a kick out of this kind of point, i.e. stuff like "We won't have solar power until the energy corporations figure out how to put a meter on the sun", followed by crybaby noises.
Look, by saying that, you admit that it's not so easy. And don't let the corporations' inaction or disinterest stop you. The sun is there (often). Go out and so it. You should be able to do it without subsidies, too, just like we converted (to the surprise of government planners) to autos from the horse and wagon without them.
Don't always wait for the government, either. Don't forget that while two bicycle mechanics from Ohio figured out how a plane can fly and then went out and did it, all government-sponsored "inventors" around the world who were being paid to come up with flying machines were running around flapping big bird wings with their arms.
So when you blubber that, "Oh, big bad Bush squashed solar power, and so did daddy Bush and Reagan", and so on, you really lose me.
By the way, I've heard for a long time that Carter installed solar panels in the White House or West Wing, and that Reagan had them removed, allegedly as a statement about what he thought of the idea. Maybe. But were you aware that they were re-installed during the George W. Administration? Gosh, why not Clinton? Must have slipped his mind like that Leonard Peltier pardon everyone was so sure Clinton would issue.
Bob Tiernan Mult County
Feb 1, '09
William: I have a question about that. Does your claim that hybrid cars are more efficient than public transit factor in what would be much higher ridership numbers (improved efficiency) if gas costs were to the point where people used 40% less? JK: Probably - you can only run buses/toy trains so full ON AVERAGE or people won’t use them because of lack of service in the non-peak hours.
Also remember that in the classic, all jobs in the central city model, the transit vehicle cannot be more than full as it nears the central city or it will have to pass up riders. It will, of course be empty at the start of its trip. Result=50% full. Now add in the, mostly empty, return trip and you are around 25% full. (of course this is a classic example - now most jobs are NOT in the central city, but it serves to demonstrate that even during rush hour, transit is not close to 100% full.)
Do the math. 60 MPG; 125,000 BTU/gal; 9 passengers average in a bus, 1.2 in a car; Trimet bus = 3,792 BTU/passenger-mile; light rail= 3,228 BTU/passenger-mile. You would have to have an unrealistic increase in transit ridership to have transit match the energy of today’s hybrids. Tomorrow’s hybrids will use even less energy, while transit will probably not get more efficient vehicles for a variety of reasons. Also a fair comparison between cars and transit would use a cramped single seat car to be comparable to what one gets on transit. Such a car would be double or better more efficient than anything available today. Since it would still be better than transit it will be produced and used before people put up with the downside of transit. There is a reason that people left transit almost 100 years ago and today’s planners simple choose to ignore the verdict of history in their zeal to reshape society.
See portlandfacts.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm for more.
More later (I actually have to do useful work!)
Thanks JK
Feb 1, '09
See a similar plan here.
It is not too different from the Republican Solar Panel Plan, or the Democrats borrowing plan.
Feb 1, '09
If we are going to get clean electricity for every taxpayer, how about buying a Hitachi Magic Wand for every female taxpayer who wants one?
Maybe if they had an orgasm every now and then, they wouldn't be so pissed off all the time. Good, CLEAN, fun!!!
Feb 1, '09
Unintended consequences of solar power--please inform your representatives. Newsweek listed this as one of the ten most underreported stories of 2008: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15659.cfm
Feb 1, '09
The unintended consequences of solar power--Newsweek listed this as one of the top ten most underreported stories of 2008. Please tell your representatives:
this is blueoregon
Feb 1, '09
Dear Blue Oregon:
You were baited by the Republicans and you took the bait.
Clearly, the R's were offering a Modest Proposal to highlight the silliness of the Legislature's myriad "green" initiatives. The absurdity of the proposal was designed to make the Blue Oregonians "literally" freak out. They took the bait and now are "literally freaking out."
Feb 1, '09
My only question is this: could you please define exactly how much a "giant hole" in the revenue stream is? Because if it's projected to be relatively insignificant, then perhaps the costs could be covered by an increase in fossil fuel taxes... like, say, for homes that use natural gas for heating.
Of course, if everyone and their mom jumps on the tax credit then it could quite easily be a fiasco. But I just can't foresee a gazillion people in the state jumping all over this. I mean, how many people are going to put solar panels on their single-wide?
Feb 2, '09
JK, I think we see things differently. I think that people and businesses will change their schedules around if gas prices go ballistic, which would result in a longer period of peak traffic on the trains and busses. I also don't see the use of looking at 100% or 50% occupancy numbers. It's useful as a theoretical maximum, but, in practice, most of the trains can hold quite a few more people most of the time. Which is to say that efficiency can easily improve quite a bit from where it is today. And for those areas near downtown where there's no more room for one more person? Wait a minute... why am I so far off the topic of the post? Essentially, you and I agree that the Republican proposal was silly.
Feb 3, '09
Posted by: William | Feb 2, 2009 11:50:55 PM
JK, I think we see things differently.
JK doesn't see anything, as in responding to your points, or debating an issue. He's a wind-up toy. When he's wound up you get a standard set of verbiage. It matters not what you say, or how you say it. He's a one trick pony. If I were to take his postings from the last 6 months, and take the posters he was responding to, and present them to you randomly, you could not match the two. There is no relationship between what was said and how he responds.
The ones I don't get are the people that debate him, but dismiss Pavel Govermentman. At least Pavel has actual proposals, regardless of how kooky most sound. JK just wants you to stop...everything. There. All fine now. Just sit. He's just a bitter old man that wants to stop everyone from doing anything he didn't and can't understand.
JK has never, once, made a positive behavioral proposal (as opposed to I propose we stop someone else from doing something), in all the terabytes of bandwidth he has wasted. Unfortunately, he is not harmless. He has completely, single-handedly, trashed the definition of what it means to be Libertarian, and convinced many in this region that he is what you get if you vote Libertarian. He should run on the Bot Ticket. Bot candidates would be popular. A lot of people would vote for someone that will always vote for everything and JK would be a legislator that would try to stop funding for anything. Baby Bush was a Bot Candidate. "I'll veto every bill coming out of the Congress". Ruined his record by leaving the Bot Party and becoming a Socialist at the end, though.
Feb 3, '09
Zara's rant above is the equivalent of trashing a chess game in progress when it's clear the other guy has out-thought you.
On this page alone I see the following "positive behavioral proposals" by JK that an open-minded fact-based individual or society could choose to implement: - support construction of nuke plants - install a natural gas generator instead of solar panels - invest in hybrid cars over public transit - educate one's self at Portlandfacts.com
<h2>Funny how folks who profess to be motivated by saving the planet get rankled at the repeated urging of a fellow citizen to take a closer look at facts that stand on their own merit. Funny how those same folks accept without challenge the scientifically flawed arguments of an ex senator whose message is so far from standing on merit that he must push it with heavy doses of "morality" while taking part in no debates because, after all, the science is settled.</h2>