tvashtarkatena

Scheduled farm subsidies have got to go. They've played a major role in the kind of large scale farming practices, which really came to the fore in the 80s, that are sending our midwestern topsoil into the Gulf of Mexico at a catastrophic rate. These same practices are also quickly depleting our fossil aquifers. What's worse, sustainable family farms almost never qualify, because they grow a variety of crops in too small a quantity to qualify, so sustainable agriculture is handicapped in the marketplace. Get rid of farm subsidies altogether, allow sustainable agriculture to compete in the fair market with factory farms, and promote local control to enable communities to reject the installation of factory farms and require healthy, sustainable farming practices (after all, they're the folks that live there). Oh, and get off the ethanol bandwagon which will destroy our topsoil just as quickly and more irreversably than our emissions are destroying the climate and focus on other solutions. Ethanol will be environmentally sound part of the solution once we develop a cellulose (trees and other crops that can be grown sustainably) based refinement. We're not there yet, and as long as we burn corn, we won't bother to go.

My friend had the same issue and type of crawl space. I agreed to look into it. When my flashlight illuminated a shimmering, writhing sea of slugs, I turned to her and said "A real man would go down there. A real smart man, however, would call a plumber."

One option is to carry a fairly light second tool with a curved shaft and reverse curved pick, rather than a full blown ice tool, which tend to be heavier and more expensive. BD and other companies make them in the 1 lb range. The curved shaft will allow more secure daggering when gripping the shaft and a straight one (more comfy for a longer period, no bashed knuckles). In steeper, neve/ice terrain, you'll be self belaying. Self arrest probably isn't possible should you get any momentum going.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth. Too bad we've a) all got to eat and b) Brazil, the poster child for biofuels, is losing topsoil due to sugar cane production (as is the United States, mainly due to corn production) at an unsustainable rate. And you don't get topsoil back.

"My God, it's full of stars."

Fargo.

"It's a good deal! A good deal...for me!"

Groundhog Day?

B.R.

Easy: A.N.

Look, those bumper stickers piss me off as much as they do you.

Mmmmmmm. Anytime, sailor. Hope you like 'em furry.

I was looking for the same boot and finally gave up. You're probably aware of this already, but these newer La Sportivas fit nothing like the old Makalus (which fit me perfectly). They're wider in the toe box now...makes for a looser feel. Fortunately, I found a pair of brand new Montrail ICE 9s on craigslist for cheap today, so my search for a winter boot is ended...assuming they don't thrash me. If you keep Googling and look down several search result pages the craigslist postings from around the country start showing up.

Not a little projection going on here. How about hauling out that "do gooder, anti GMO hippy cartoon", JayB, as long as we're missing the mark? And 40% isn't a big enough sector for you? Where did you go to school, exactly? This discussion was focused on transportation fuel consumption and emissions, but, as I stated previously, no one here implied or argued that other sectors should not also be regulated to reduce consumption and increase efficiency. A focused discussion is not an 'obsessive' discussion. Gay boy.

There is no one way. A carbon tax is part of a 'basket' of policies needed to address two major issues: consumption (oil dependence), and emissions (global warming). The gay thing is purely a social attitudes issue: there is no society wide, super shitty environmental cost to a couple of patent leather nazis in assless chaps having some super-fun. Whatever cost there is to such booginess exists only in the minds of those offended. The gay thing is also an equal rights issue, as defined in the Bill of Rights under the equal protection. Or so I believe. But I digress. Yes, the poor will be hit hardest by any consumption tax, but in this case, the dire consequences of continued consumption at this level warrant such a measure. No policy is perfectly consistent with any one political philosophy, or without unintended consequences. Oh well. Fuel efficient cars cluster on the cheaper end of the spectrum. Tax incentives for purchasing these cheaper, higher mpg cars could offset most of the burden on the poor. Funding more mass transit would also buffer this effect. The egalitarian in me likes the idea of rationing, but the reality of it is just fucked up. In the end, all you get is massive pent up demand and a spike in inflation, and the associated economic shocks. While it occurs you get inefficiency because consumption patterns are not allowed to balance themselves.

Running with Scissors?

Never Cry Wolf?

Two different 'they's.

I'm waiting for the rappers, so the bastards kin git down.

Now now, none of that. Be fair and sincere. I argued out of the starting gate for a high gas tax...and real CAFE standards. Both. Not either/or. BOTH. That means the one and the other. Together. And manipulating the sales price of vehicles??? I believe that would still be the decision of the manufacturer.

I remember gas rationing. Huge lines at the pump, and a really, really pissed off voting population. Plus, an expensive and complicated program to administer. It didn't last long.

Just wait til the mortgage mushroom cloud fully develops.

Good observations on the effect of higher fuel prices - whether brought about by taxes or the market. If commercial users were exempted, and the poorer you were the more of the gas-tax you got back, I think that you could avoid most of the problems associated with the tax that you brought up - at least in theory. Like a true blue Republican, you're already gutting the primary intent of the regulation, which is to reduce consumption and emissions. Given that commercial transportation emissions exceed residential, why bother? Keep it simple. Everybody pays at the pump.

Note bold text. Cough. Make a law that revenues gained by the fuel tax will be offset by reductions in income taxes and I think that the political resistance to the idea would diminish, especially if the taxes were phased in over the course of several years. I'm not sure what your coughing is all about. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that, when gas hits $10 a gallon or whatever the magic number is, people will do anything to avoid driving. Brilliant. Your idea sounds good in theory...pure theory, given our deficit. Thanks to the administration you and yours voted in, I wouldn't expect a reduction in any form of federal taxation, even if it involves a straight trade, that has a remote chance of reducing revenues (and there would be that risk due to undcertainty with your plan) for the rest of your life.

One of the reasons no one asks the mpg of a used vehicle is because they already know the answer; that information is readily available and most folks, including myself, take it into account in choosing what type of vehicle to buy before they ever talk to a seller. If fuel taxes were high enough, CAFE standards would not be necessary. They would have to be very high, however. Politically, that's not going to happen any time soon. CAFE standards, from a political standpoint, are an already relatively popular and therefore much more feasible way to reduce consumption and emissions. A combination of CAFE standards without loopholes, carbon taxes, and elimination of subsidies for gas guzzlers are the most feasible near term solution, politically speaking, to the problem.