[Grovenet] Fwd: Big Look Survey & 1000 Friends Response

[David Morelli]

On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Bonnie Combs wrote:

> FYI and possible comments.
>
> Thanks for your time.
> Bonnie B Combs
> --- Gerik Kransky <gerik at friends.org> wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:26:28 -0700
>> From: Gerik Kransky <gerik at friends.org>
>> To: tosca at prodigy.net
>> Subject: Big Look Survey & 1000 Friends Response
>>
>> To view this email as a web page, please click here.
>>
>> http://www.friends.org/resources/luu.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

My comments to them.

1. statewide importance vs market tools.
It is easy to use the words "market based" while ignoring the off  
site costs of market decisions.  Because farm, forest & fallow uses  
are significant carbon repositories on an annual or longer basis,  
carbon and air pollution taxes should be enacted on an air shed basis  
with payments to operators of carbon sinks and air filters as a  
market tool to increase the relative value of farm, forest & fallow  
vs deforestation and development.  Water pollution taxes should fund  
operators of riparian cleansing sites, e.g. swales, swamps, & stream  
side wild lands.  The charge on maintenance of roofs, roads, drives,  
parking and other impervious surfaces that increase run off should  
fund operators of "sponges" that delay the surface flow and increase  
ground water recharge.
Push for real market-based tools.  Push for placing the full cost of  
the problem onto the balance sheet of the source of the problem, and  
pay the provided of the solution rather than legislating a "giving".   
If there aren't enough carbon sinks, air filters, water filters or  
recharge sites in an air/water shed to maintain a pristine system,  
the pollution sources are not paying sufficient amounts to attract  
sufficient pollution cleaning providers.

2 Growth Management
a. We should be designing our future land use as if gasoline cost an  
hour's wage per gallon, and low cost, foreign food supplies are  
subject to interruption or diversion. Large populations in the Metro  
area totally dependent on foreign oil and foreign food is not good  
planning.
b. "If you build it, they will come"  We spend a lot of money  
ensuring that we will have the problems associated with growth by  
ensuring that we will have growth.  Population follows jobs.  Reduce  
the job projections and reduce the population.
c. Start talking about birth rates and immigration.  No one seems  
capable of considering a successful economy that is not growing  
exponentially.  The whole concept of locating future growth in the  
same place as historic growth should be reviewed.  The whole concept  
of one massive metro blight on the surface of our state, rather than  
many smaller contained communities should also be reviewed.

Economic Prosperity
a.Drop the government subsidies for quick growth and loser  
investments.  Stop local governments from racing to the bottom as  
they try to attract corporate prostitutes - the businesses that won't  
go to bed with you without a financial offer.
b.Address for-profit medical insurance, medicines, clinics and  
hospitals to address employment costs in the state.

Climate Change
a. Targets and mandates.  No one has a "right" to pollute air or  
water.  The cost of maintaining air and water purity should be paid  
by those who operate the sources of pollution.  That way the cost is  
passed to their consumers who will make an economic choice, rather  
than to those who live downstream who have no choice.
Cap and trade for pollution cleanup may be acceptable, but the  
charges must be for anything greater than zero.  The incentive must  
be to eliminate all pollution, otherwise we still reach the day of  
death.
b. All urban and suburban schools should be walk in not bus in.
Gasoline is too cheap, its price should reflect the cost of  
sequestering the carbon released and the NOx removal.  Stop trying to  
solve the "transportation problem" by building more lanes of  
freeways.    Don't expand the I-5 Bridge in Portland
to Vancouver.  Don't destroy neighborhoods to improve the commute of  
people just passing through.  People are willing to spend 15-30  
minutes on their commute, improving traffic flow just allows them to  
commute longer distances.  High fuel costs and long commute times  
encourages them to rethink their job-housing arrangement.  Stop  
fighting the market forces, let commuters pay the full cost of their  
choices.
There should be no environmental impact on a community from their  
industry, then people can live a healthy life close to jobs.   
Communities should strive to be self contained for jobs and housing  
(not Metro wide, local), each city should be distinct surrounded by a  
carbon sink, food source green belt.  There are people in New York  
City who have never left their borough, that is not sad that is  
wonderful.  We should strive to have such complete communities.