NPCA: Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Evidence Of Why California Desert Protection And Recreation Act Is Needed

Should the Koch brothers want to use the money they've set aside for political giving, along with money to be contributed by like-minded people, actually to help the American people -- and the rest of the world

You could say the same thing about the  NEA, SEIU, ACTBlue, American Federation of State, County and municiple employess, food workers union, electrical union ........

The one difference is that the Koch brothers do give to eleeomosynary causes - and they are giving their own money not money they have extorted from others. 

The cost of rooftop solar varies widely depending on where you are.  In CA, after the 30% rebate, your initial investment will produce energy at an average cost of $0.09 to $0.10 per KWh over 20 years.  If you borrow money to pay for it, and therefore take into account the time cost of money, it's probably 16 to 18c a KWh.

And it's dropping.  So, it's quite competitive with our current electricity providers.

Now, if you're in a northern state with lots of cheap hydro electric, it'll never pan out.

More evidence that the scientists are not telling the truth. As some have said on this site the earth is not getting warmer and no need to consider solar versus coal, oil, and gas.

The World Meteorological Organization reported on Monday that 2014 was the hottest year in a historical record of global temperature dating from 1880. That finding confirms an announcement made last month by two American scientific agencies and one in Japan.

The Geneva-based agency noted, however, that 2014 was warmer than some other recent years by only a few hundredths of a degree, within the error margin of global temperature measurements. That effectively means that 2014, 2010 and 2005 are in a statistical tie. A British group that tracks global temperatures recently cited the uncertainty in declining to name 2014 as the warmest year.

The World Meteorological Organization, the weather and climate arm of the United Nations, also pointed out that 14 of the 15 warmest years on record had all occurred in the 21st century, with 1998 being the only exception. “The overall warming trend is more important than the ranking of an individual year,” the secretary general of the agency, Michel Jarraud, said in a statement.

Alfred Runte is correct when he says that we are all trapped by the SYSTEM.  Now what can we do about it?

For one thing, we can make efforts to become informed and to learn the truth.

For another, we can try to persuade others to join us.

That's what we're doing here, if you stop to think about it.  Unfortunately, there are many who choose to listen only to their own preconceived opinions and seek an echo chamber in which they may join others in cacophanous shouts.

We are trapped in the SYSTEM.  What about using wisdom to change the system?

I find it ironic that many of my friends count me as a conservative person.  Perhaps it's because many other conservatives have moved so far to the right that I'm now in left field.  But I'm one of those old fashioned conservatives who still believes in the ideals expressed in the GOP's 1956 party platform as reported by Jim Hightower:

http://jimhightower.com/node/8535#.VN1vcy6rE2M

My, how things change!

My, how things change!

Yes how?  What do you see in that platform that is to the left of today's GOP?  If anything, today's GOP is far less conservative (for the worse). 

Here's what one rather conservative fact checker says:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/28/facebook-...

So 7 items, most of which I would argue the GOP still supports in the context of 1956 standards.
How many dozens others would you reject today?  Probably most. 

If the option where the 1956 GOP platform or Obama's today.  I would easily pick the 1956 GOP platform.  How about you Lee - which would you pick?

According to Mr Runte Malthusian view of the world, population control is the silver bullet.  As usual, one needs to be careful what one wishes for.  Without population growth, we get less economic activity and therefore less means to pay for our pension/social security or National parks.  While it's pretty clear that this planet cannot support an unlimited population, limiting growth wouldn't be without its own problems.

In other words, Zebulon, you agree there are limits, of which, yes, population is only one. Just this morning, on page A10 of The Wall Street Journal, this headline caught my eye: "Asia Leads World in Dumping Plastic in Seas." China is first and the United States ranks 20th--nothing to be proud about, but a pittance in comparsion to those countries whose population growth exeeds our own. The WSJ's article, by the way, was originally reported in Science, so no one came blame the Koch brothers for downplaying our complicity in the destruction of the seven seas.

China is far in front. "Ma Jun, an environmental activist based in Bejing, said the government has greatly expanded waste collection and treatment in cities in recent years. Big supermarkets have reduced the use of plastic bags or have begun issuing biodegradable sacks. BUT THE RAPID EXPANSION OF CITIES (my italics) has outpaced such efforts, Mr. Ma said. The Chinese government 'had made great effort to treat household refuse, but with the rapid development of urbanization, the ability to dispose of garbage is insufficient,' said Mr. Ma of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs."

So, what are we to make of this? In the first place, is not urbanization "code" for population growth? In the second place, are these not the people we are "waiting for" until 2030 to address the pressing issue of climate change? Certainly, in the memorandum of understanding President Obama just struck with China, he said they will be on board by 2030. Only 15 more years to wait, during which, in the meantime, by 2025, "the amount of plastic waste fouling the seas [may] equal 10 bags full of plastic per foot of coastline."

Gee. I wonder what kind of impact that will have on our national parks? We only have all of those national seashores allegedly about to disappear under rising seas. The point here is that long before that ever happens, they will likely be encased in plastic from end to end.

How is it that we can reasonably expect so-called green energy to save us from examples like this? I agree. Malthus was a couple of centuries early, but who is to say he was wrong? Call it what you will--urbanization, deforestation, erosion, pollution, etc., etc., etc. All are code for things "out of hand." If we don't get them back in hand, what good does it do to grow technology in a different form?

Once upon a time, the environmental movement taught the facts of growth. Now it teaches wizardry. China says no? Then we'll wait. Well, if the problem is so pressing, how is it we can afford to wait?

Is that good public policy? is it worth losing your public lands over? In that case, enjoy your walk on the beach, but please don't complain about the plastic. It happened to come all the way from China. You can fish it out and call it "exotic." But don't blame the Koch brothers for putting it there. Your president did that by agreeing to wait.

Zeb - worry not. You and I alone could put together a list just of the religious movements, who mandate making as many more little believers as possible, to say nothing of the Duggars of the world. Population growth is an out of control avalanche, and all the ZPG folks in the world can only mitigate it in the slightest increment. Short of a world-wide sterilizing virus - yeah, we've all seen movies like that - eventually drilling in ANWR will finally be eliminated by covering the pumpjacks with high rise apartments. I'm afraid the fear of wishing for stopping population growth will not be realized.

the global corporate monopolies,

Could you identify those "corporate monopolies"?

Ron, I really would like to cross paths and discuss.  At least then you couldn't run from the questions.  But then your are more honest than Lee and Rick.  You don't pretend to hide.

Come to Breck and stay as my guest.  Or, name a park and we can meet there.

ec, you provide a very important service on the site.  I'm sure your antagonizers would prefer a big lovefest but that would not get us out of this mess.  Rock On, Sir!

ec, you provide a very important service on the site.

I agree, I wish I wouldn't let these progressives determined to ruin America get under my skin. The President's agreement with China is so disgustingly laughable.

I agree, I wish I wouldn't let these conservatives determined to ruin America get under my skin. The President's agreement with China is a great step in the right direction. 

While the U.S. has been reducing its emissions and China's have historically increased, the agreement might help spur China in the right direction.  IF the Chinese stick to the agreement, their emissions will begin coming down, too.  Because of the agreement, their efforts may become more vigorous and their progress in environmental improvements may well be hastened.

It's not a very big stretch to think that if the U.S. had not passed clean air and water standards when we did, then our millions of tons of CO2 per year might well be very similar to those produced by China.

China is playing catch-up.  The agreement is an important part of helping them move in that direction.  Once upon a time, the U.S. had to start on the road to cleaner environment.  How many years has it taken and how much farther do we still have to go?  Now, hopefully, China is making their start toward a cleaner environment.

We can either look forward toward a better future as progressives or we can continue to try to stand still or slide backwards as conservatives.

I know what the better choice is.

or we can continue to try to stand still or slide backwards as conservatives.

The strawmen are alive and well.

The real issue is not what someone may say in a post, or what words they may choose to try to say it.  The real issue in this string is a serious environmental concern.

When trolls try to derail the conversation by attacking the messengers rather than trying to rationally address the issue, nothing is gained and a lot is lost.  Unfortunately, the same sort of thing happens in Congress and some of our popular media.

It has been very refreshing to read posts by Ron Mackie, Rick, Dr. Runte and a few others.  But trying to defend them and others from troll attacks is fruitless.

That's why the IGNORE button is such a blessing.

That's why the IGNORE button is such a blessing.

Then you should use it instead of hiding behing its existence to shield you from having to substantiate your claims and accusations. 

I'm sure other readers are intelligent enough to determine whether or not things have been substantiated or not.  The opinion of one does not cast the final ballot.

What some of us try to do here is point people in the direction of well balanced material that might help them actually learn something.  But that will succeed only if some other readers will actually READ the entire article posted instead of stopping only at the headline or with a few points of summary.  Becoming informed and being able to balance opposing opinions takes some real effort.  If one makes that effort, they might be surprised to realize their biases can actually change -- usually to a more moderate stance.

Now, what do you think of the CO2 agreement with China?

Now, what do you think of the CO2 agreement with China?

I think beach's chart speaks for itself.  Even if CO2 is an issue, this agreement doesn't do a thing.  All it does it put the US at a competitive disadvantage which will stunt job creaton and hurt the middle class. 

I think the agreement with China is a step in the right direction but whether it accomplishes anything remains to be seen. Regarding the back and forth on this site and others it remindes me that besides death and taxes being universal problems affecting everyone there is a new one in the internet age. Everything you say will be used against you by someone.

I wouldn't necessarily stand with Beach's chart, especially without any attribution. The World Resources Institute seems a bit more bullish of the agreement.

http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/numbers-china-us-climate-agreement

So, too, is Slate.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/11/obama_s...

There are more stories that say it's a good deal, but that's a good start.

The World Resources Institute seems a bit more bullish of the agreement.

But still show China output more than doubling while the US is in decline.  And even those numbers are pure speculation since China has only given a peak year not peak output.  Not to mention the likelihood of China sticking to the agreement is virtually zero. 

Happy Valentine's Day, good people. Now, let's remember to show some love. My wife just ran out the door to the Seattle Neighborhood Coalition meeting. I get to stay and "make love" to you!

Lee, God bless you for believing in love. China will come around. I hope so, but I do remain a student (and friend) of the late Garrett Hardin. The Tragedy of the Commons will always be with us unless some of form of discipline is imposed.

How are we to impose it on China? Are they not simply buying time at our expense? I agree to the need for faith, but what about the expense? Right now, dozens of huge container ships are anchored off all of our West Coast ports. As my late father-in-law, a former federal labor mediator, used to say when observing those ships: "They are filled with Chinese goods at the expense of American jobs." China nonetheless expects us to buy those goods and keep its culture/country/economy afloat. By the way, my father-in-law was a deep-blue Democrat. And when I bought a blazer from Nordstrom's--a non union shop--he didn't talk to me for a month.

Why are we talking to these guys? Because the euphemism is "free trade." Okay. Then who is it free to? Why is it not called "open trade?" Open is the truth; free is not. It's costing us--and costing us dearly--to prop China up at our expense.

The least China could do is protect the environment, but they're not even doing that. Why? My point is that they can't afford to because of excessive population. President Obama's point is that they "will" when they exchange poorer technologies for cleaner ones.

We'll see, come Valentine's Day 2030, whether he was right. But he will be long gone from office. And is that not the deeper point? When politicians make these deals, who benefits and who pays? Just who is getting the "free" ride?

Right now, our politicians are hoping they will get a free ride. They will not have to answer for what they hope to visit across all of our public lands in the name of "green." Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was among the worst interior secretaries I have ever seen. He believed in the "fast track," i.e., the environmental impact statement written in haste. Science? Just quote the last report. Perhaps the eagles are thicker in this part of the desert, but why care? Who needs to know? We need to get green. There is a heat wave coming and we need to stop it. And so he let the worst of the impact statements through.

I don't see that Sally Jewell is any better. Again, is this all worth making deals with China? Because that is why we are ultimately going green. They neither can nor will. At least, that is the president's argument. We must go first so they eventually can.

I don't buy it without the discipline. I would be sending all of those container ships back home. But then, I am not the president--or the secretary of the interior. I do know this, however. Every stick of clothing now on my back--including my Rockport shoes and L. L. Bean coat--was made in China, Thailand, Bangladesh, or Vietnam. I'll buy their clothes, but I will not buy the argument that we should wait for them to grow up. Nor will I allow my party--the Democratic Party--to blame it all on the Koch brothers in the hope that I won't think about what my "side" is doing to make these problems worse.

Tough love on a Valentine's Day. But then, it was the kind of country we used to be. The buck always stopped with the people in office. Now they are blaming us.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Dr. Runte.  But at the same time I have to ask how many of those containers filled with Chinese products come to us as a direct result of profiteering schemes hatched by American companies and businessmen whose only concern is the bottom line?

Be it LL Bean, WalMart, or any of thousands of other American businesses who sold out their own workers, who is really responsible for this?

As you wrote yesterday, we are all trapped by THE SYSTEM.  Who created THE SYSTEM?  How can we begin to change THE SYSTEM or are we going to be content to allow THE SYSTEM to slowly destroy all America has ever hoped to be?

Who is pushing for the various "free trade" agreements and why?

Only when we can ferret out those who are creating and sustaining THE SYSTEM can we ever hope to change it.

I agree that we simply lack self discipline.  Americans have become too accustomed to easy living.  Too many Americans are too young to remember days when rivers caught fire and air in many cities was unbreathable or water undrinkable.  Too many Americans are more concerned with coins jingling in their pockets than some of our old fashioned values of working together and trying to find solutions that would lift all instead of pushing some down.

The answer to all this lies not at either extreme of the political spectrum but somewhere in the middle.

But to reach that middle will require that some of us oldsters who recall the days before Mr. Nixon signed the environmental acts are able to educate the youngsters who, so far at least, seem unable or unwilling to look past the coins in their pockets.

There is something out there we seem to be lacking.  An old fashioned thing called CAUTIOUS WISDOM.

And I love the last two sentences of your post above.  Trouble is -- they are right when they blame us.  After all, we continue to elect them.

But at the same time I have to ask how many of those containers filled with Chinese products come to us as a direct result of profiteering schemes hatched by American companies and businessmen whose only concern is the bottom line?

Yes those businesses are trying to enhance their bottom line.  That IS the purpose of businesses.  Those boats are coming from China because American regulations and taxes make it more economic to manufacture in China than in the US. 

I hope some of our friends will take time to read ALL of the article found at Kurt's link to World Resources.  Especially be sure to scroll down far enough to take a long look at the charts comparing Historical Emission and Emissions per Capita.

That Emissions Per Capita is revealing.  It illustrates the point that if Americans were willing to exercise some of Dr. Runte's Self Discipline or the GOP's Personal Responsibility, we could do a lot more to improve the world around us.

It's very easy -- and lazy -- to try to claim that excessive regulation or government interference is the cause of all our problems.  To use a phrase popular in some circles, it's an excellent strawman.  But may I submit that the real problem is far more complex than that alone?  May I submit that it comes down, once again, to a lack of self discipline and corporate responsibility when profit is placed before the welfare of our nation and its citizens?

What is REALLY important?

Now instead of attacking me for saying this, how about presenting a reply to my questions?  What is REALLY important?

to a lack of self discipline and corporate responsibility when profit is placed before the welfare of our nation and its citizens?

It is not the responsibility of businesses to take care of the welfare of our nation or its citizens.  Their function is solely to provide a return to their owners. Now often they can optimize that return by doing (or appearing to do) what is good for the nation or its citizens and more often than not the nation and its citizens benefit when corporations optimize their bottom line.  But they have no obligation to do so.

to try to claim that excessive regulation or government interference is the cause of all our problems.

One again a claim that was never made.  However the claim that was made, regulations and taxes incentivise businesses to manufacturer outside the US, is undisputed fact.

What is REALLY important?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Lee, once upon a time in my life, I thought only of being a teacher. That was what was really important to me. The national parks would become my subject and the environment my larger subject. Then something in America changed. And it changed among environmentalists, too. Brian Williams is just the latest victim of it, but our colleges and universities are also victims. Why do we send our children to college? Because they need to get a JOB. It used to be that the job would take care of itself. Now young people are instilled with the fear of failure, and so yes, all they think about is what pays. Thus even Brian Williams, at the top of his game, felt he needed to inflate his vita. Someone might be gaining on him, and that someone better schooled in convincing the public that exaggeration is the norm.

Here is how Peggy Noonan addressed the issue this morning in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. "A longtime reader of this column, age 84, emailed recently to say the heartbreak of his life the past few years has been witnessing the daily corruption of all information--the rigging of numbers and claiming of facts, the scientific papers that manipulate data to advance a political agenda, the misleading government statistics. We're drowning in lies, he said."

Just so. When my colleague Dan Botkin dared even suggest that on these pages, half of you could not wait to rip his head off, and the other half to say "I told you so!" You dared not even think that ALL of you were wrong. That is what got us swamped in lies. Ever since Vietnam, we have been convincing ourselves we need to win the argument rather than learn the facts. If any single thing in this country is really important to me, it is getting past that phenomenon.

As Dan reminded me some days ago, there is so much bad science out there these days that good science no longer survives. It doesn't get funded; those scientists are never hired, because now everything about science is a political agenda. Same in history, I might add. Who wants to teach the national parks? Or the environment as a collective problem? The fashion statement is American guilt. EC may be wrong half of the time, but on that his facts are straight. You can't be a patriot anymore, lest you offend someone unpatriotic. These days, you are not allowed to love anything but yourself. Am I surprised that Brian Williams lied? No, I am only surprised that someone finally called it a lie.

Read Peggy Noonan this morning. There it is. Why we can't solve these problems anymore. We pay people to lie every time we allow them to call it something else. If no one is lying about climate change, they are lying when they suggest that we can stop it by insulting the land again. It does, however, make good press on the evening news. No time for facts; just enough time for a "personality" that will set the record straight. Cue Al Gore for another "interview," when it is substance the issue needs.

This election, let us all resolve to confront the issues instead of one another. The Traveler is unique in that the forum of national parks leads to so many other pressing issues. If you will, the parks are the canary in the coal mine. As we treat our parks, so we treat our politics. When the parks were strong, our leaders were strong--two Roosevelts among them. Could Hillary or Jeb be our next Roosevelt? If not, perhaps Lee is right that we should start looking in the mirror again. We have certainly had enough of our lesser brand.

In the spirit of the Valentine love of the day, I'd like to also invite any and all of the readers of this forum to let me know if you're coming to my corner of Alaska this summer or anywhen. We're both a cruise ship stop, and also driveable from the lower 48.

Whether Kurt, Lee, or ec, trailadvocate, or beachdumb, or someone lurking I've never heard of. I promise a safe and respectful space, I'll buy the first round of coffee or our Spruce Tip Ale, and I would welcome getting to know the real person behind some of the posted stuff and sharing local lore. Retired now after a couple of years of giving daily tours to the visitors, hopefully I can share a bit about the Klondike Gold Rush and the Days of 98.

This is a clean offer, no ulterior motives to those with whom I've had spats. It is sort of the same idea as 'National Coming Out Day' - when you get to know someone personally, you get more sensitized to them and less reactive. Plus I just like showing off our local piece of Alaska and the local national historical park.

Thanks, Rick. I am sure a few of us will take you up on that. Getting rid of us will be your only problem!

Some suggest Business Ethics have no place in calculating the "bottom line", so, 

when you shop at Walmart, are You saying Business Ethics have No Value ?

Consider How Walmart Discounted Ethics  May 7, 2012

Its Mexican bribery scandal shows the perils of bowing to local "custom"

Also:    http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2113176,00.html

and      http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_online/0081

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/walmart-long.pdf

https://leaderswedeserve.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/walmart-faces-ethical-...

Real-World Examples of Bad Business Ethics

Reputation is a company’s biggest asset so you would think companies would avoid engaging in shady business practices. However, many large corporations find their reputations and credibility destroyed due to practices that are harmful and illegal.

Agree.  And I would never condone illegal.  "Harmful" can be subjective.  Is it unethical or even harmful to export a job?  I think not.  Especially when by exporting that job you can offer your customers a superior product at a lower price. 

Alfred, you are absolutely correct in almost everything you say there.  I still believe (or at least hope) that most people are basically honest.  But I really worry about those who have sold themselves to the highest bidders.  The Great American Entitlement Mentality is a large part of the ugliness and I truly believe that the feeling to Entitlement is greatest among those at the top of the economic heap.  I also believe -- based upon my own experiences -- that the most honest and trustworthy people are the humble ones near the bottom of the heap.

What's happening in America today is pathetic.

Our national parks and all the challenges they face are only a tiny microcosm of a much bigger, wretchedly fettid swamp of sewage.

Yes, we are all trapped by THE SYSTEM.  Worse yet is that we continue to enable THE SYSTEM that entraps us.

Brian Williams is a tragedy.  Unfortunately, he is only one out of thousands or perhaps even millions of similar tragedies.

Again, all I can do is try to speak out against what I believe is wrong and in favor of what I believe is right.  But I -- and the rest of us -- also need to recognize that we have a moral obligation to look beyond our preconceived notions to seek whatever truth might be out there.  Sometimes the best experiences a person can have are those times when they suddenly realize that they have been mistaken and have an opportunity to correct the mistake.

Sometimes the best experiences a person can have are those times when they suddenly realize that they have been mistaken and have an opportunity to correct the mistake.

Lee, I think you should start here: "I truly believe that the feeling to Entitlement is greatest among those at the top of the economic heap."

People at the top didn't get there by sitting on their behinds and waiting for someone to hand it to them. 

No, many of them used cheating, influence peddling and purchasing, and other ugly methods to reach the top regardless of who they may have had to use or trample along the way.  Now that they are at the top, they will do anything necessary to remain there.  Only rarely are they caught -- as were our two recent Utah Attorneys General and some of their contributors.

May I be so bold as to suggest that perhaps you might start looking for your own mistakes?  They shouldn't be too hard to find.  ;=}

No, many of them used cheating, influence peddling and purchasing, and other ugly methods to reach the top regardless of who they may have had to use or trample along the way.

That's effort.  You may not like their methods. But making an effort is not :"feeling to entitlement"   And probably they are "rarely" caught because those that have used illegal methods are an infintesimal share of those that have made it to the top.  Sorry, I am not inclined to condemn an entire class (upper or lower) based on the malfeasance of a few.

They shouldn't be too hard to find. ;=}

Perhaps you would like to point them out. Just make sure they are things I actually said or did, as opposed to your fantasy strawmen, and substantiate they are mistakes.  With those two requirements, I don't expect you to comply anytime soon.  

Why bother?  You'll dodge.  Besides, the list would be so long I'd be up all night typing.

But how about taking time to do some reading?  Y'might find those "strawmen" aren't made of straw after all.

Try this one for starters:

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Articles-on-Christian-Science/2011/...

Read it all.  Every word.

Why bother? You'll dodge.

Dodge, or provide answers you don't like and can't refute.  Just more of your empty accusations.

And I read the csmonitor article.  Don't quite see what your point was. I certainly didn't see where the article claimed all the top of the economic heap had an entitlement mentality.  Can prayer help. Probably, but more those that are praying than those being prayed for. 

Suddenly, I'm not feeling the "love." EC, I have great respect for the corporate class; however, it is not the latest bunch. When my dad worked at "the plant," the owner made ten times his salary. Now it is often hundreds more. You say there is nothing unethical about sending a job overseas. Agreed. However, then you say that perhaps by exporting a job, the company can offer a superior product at a lower price. Today's corporate class argues this all the time. The adjective in play is "superior." But what if it is NOT superior? What if it is only cheaper to make? That blazer I bought from Nordstrom's made in the USA? It lasted me five years. I can't find it anymore at that allegedly "lower price." What I can find at the price is at Men's Wearhouse and hardly lasts a year.

As a historian, I am always looking for the adjectives. Do they describe the action or do they mislead? Green in front of energy is also an adjective meant totally to mislead. How about just energy? Well, the corporate moguls know that will never work. As do you know by your choice of words that "superior" is needed to make your argument. The point remains that if the consumer cannot afford it, because the consumer no longer has a job, it doesn't matter the quality or the price. We're done. Asia rising. Until yes, WE go in the hole.

Right now, we are spending down our inheritance to keep all of this afloat. Fine. I just don't want it to include our public lands. The billionaires can have the rest of it, but I still don't think we should give them that. And one day, probably when we are dead, they won't be billionaires any longer. Because the only thing that made them that way was the "superior" system of government that allowed it. You want to bet that the "system" will survive by sending our best jobs overseas? In that case, you are swimming against the tide of history, but hey, what does history have to do with it? All the kids are taking business now.

PS Christine is home and asking for her valentine. I told her it is tied up at the docks on one of those ships from China that can't unload. Guess how far I got with that? So, I had better take her out to dinner, but yes, you have been great valentines, and I salute you!

Alfred - cheaper is good enough for me - assuming the same quality.  If it is inferior, don't buy it.  Nobody is forcing you to buy any product --- oh except for Obama forcing you to buy insurance. 

Now go take care of Christine.

Let's try to return to something I pointed out earlier. 

Let's try to return to something I pointed out earlier. 

Let's hear some comments -- rational comments -- on the information in graphs in this article.  How can we possibly justify the personal emissions of each of us Americans?

(I couldn't copy the graph, so here's the link to the entire article again)

http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/numbers-china-us-climate-agreement

And the Slate article  -- but please don't coment until after reading the entire article.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/11/obama_s...

Don't try dodging again.

Great post, Alfred.  Exactly what I've been clumsily trying to say.  Green Energy -- Clean Coal, both great propaganda  trying to sell something to gullible people.

Have a fine dinner with your valentine!

How can we possibly justify the personal emissions of each of us Americans?

Why is justification needed?

Let's hear some comments -- rational comments -- on the information in graphs in this article.

Apparently you didn't read the article.  There is no "information" it is all conjecture and supposition as admitted by the author.

PS- still waiting for my "mistakes".

Y'just made more. 

But then again, perhaps when it's deliberate, it's not a mistake.

Please point out for us where the author "admits" his article is conjecture.

Hopeless.  Absolutely hopeless.

As countries get richer, their natality rate goes down.  So, we can look forward to India and China to become rich for their population growth to decrease.  It may be too late by then...

The thing is, Lee, those in the extreme right wing have this quaint notion that Americans are not selfish enough yet.