Cheap Gas=Unnatural Capitalism

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Don Quijote, Jul 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Don Quijote

    Don Quijote Guest

    ('Natural Capitalism,' a book about environmentally-friendly, high-tech capitalism.)

    Propose what you may, say what you want, scream if you will... Natural Capitalism won't happen
    because gas prices are low, real low. Actually they are subsidized so the 19th-century, SUV-friendly
    capitalism is kept in place...

    Check it out...

    http://www.natcap.org/module.php?th...d=391&groupId=4

    http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

    __________________
    "What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the indifference of the many" -M.L. King
     
    Tags:


  2. On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:25:38 -0700, Don Quijote wrote:

    > ('Natural Capitalism,' a book about environmentally-friendly, high-tech capitalism.)
    >
    > Propose what you may, say what you want, scream if you will... Natural Capitalism won't happen
    > because gas prices are low, real low. Actually they are subsidized so the 19th-century,
    > SUV-friendly capitalism is kept in place...
    >
    > Check it out...
    >
    > http://www.natcap.org/module.php?th...d=391&groupId=4
    >
    > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
    >
    >
    > __________________
    > "What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the indifference of the many" -M.L. King
    What people don't realize is our military (US) costs are huge to ensure cheap oil, they only look at
    the pump price and bitch about taxes.
     
  3. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:25:38 -0700, Don Quijote wrote:
    >
    > > ('Natural Capitalism,' a book about environmentally-friendly, high-tech capitalism.)
    > >
    > > Propose what you may, say what you want, scream if you will... Natural Capitalism won't happen
    > > because gas prices are low, real low. Actually they are subsidized so the 19th-century,
    > > SUV-friendly capitalism is kept in place...
    > >
    > > Check it out...
    > >
    > > http://www.natcap.org/module.php?th...d=391&groupId=4
    > >
    > > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
    > >
    > >
    > > __________________
    > > "What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the indifference of the many" -M.L. King
    > What people don't realize is our military (US) costs are huge to ensure cheap oil, they only look
    > at the pump price and bitch about taxes.
    >

    I dream of the day when the US is spending billions to fight over NiMH batteries and Hydrogen.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
     
  4. Don Quijote

    Don Quijote Guest

    "Bald Headed John Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:25:38 -0700, Don Quijote wrote:
    >
    " -M.L. King
    > What people don't realize is our military (US) costs are huge to ensure cheap oil, they only look
    > at the pump price and bitch about taxes.

    That's right, you pay a price, one way or another...

    Honest Accounting -- The Real Cost of Going to War With Iraq Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.)

    October 31, 2002

    (snip)

    One question that is almost never asked is how much does "cheap oil" really cost U.S.
    consumers/taxpayers? Honest accounting would seem to require including money spent by the U.S.
    military to ensure the continued flow of "cheap oil."

    For example, the 1990-91 Gulf War should be included in the costs for that era. As it turned out,
    that war didn't cost U.S. consumers/taxpayers much. Of the estimated $61.1 billion total
    war-fighting bill, only $2.1 billion ($79.9 billion and $4 billion, respectively, in 2002 dollars)
    hit the U.S. treasury and thus the consumer/taxpayer. Allies paid the rest.

    But this time, allies (if any) will not be as amenable to picking up the tab as they were in 1991.
    Thus the real cost of any war will be much higher.

    Unfortunately, getting rough estimates, let alone precise figures, is extremely difficult. But there
    are some figures available that can give citizens a feel for some of the costs.

    One cost is preparing for and performing "contingencies" or operations that require extra steaming
    and flying hours or special training for deployments. For example, routine annual operating costs of
    a naval battle group (in 2003 dollars) are about $1.3 billion. This increases (primarily for naval
    air operations) when a battle group is assigned to conduct patrols in or near the Persian Gulf --
    and frequently there are two battle groups in the vicinity. (If one adds in the cost of building the
    ships, on the premise that without this mission the Navy could get by with one less battle group,
    the annualized 2003 cost for acquisition, operation and support is $2.2 billion).

    The Air Force patrols no-fly zones -- Operations Northern and Southern Watch -- over Iraq, and the
    Army is continually rotating forces into Kuwait for "exercises." The General Accounting Office
    (GAO), in July 2001, estimated costs of all contingency operations in Southwest Asia at $1.05
    billion for Fiscal Year (FY)2001.

    The Army considers exercises conducted to prepare for operations such as those in the Balkans to be
    "contingency" costs. In 2000, the average cost per unit rotation was $9-11 million for Bosnia and
    $14-15 million for Kosovo. GAO put the cost of operations associated with Bosnia and Kosovo
    deployments in 2001 at $3.1 billion.

    In all cases, these amounts would be reduced by the cost of "routine training" that would have
    occurred had the unit not been engaged in preparing for or participating in a contingency.

    Costs of a new war with Iraq would have to be added to the above. One baseline for these costs is
    the $100-$200 billion estimate given Sept. 16 by Lawrence Lindsey, President Bush's top economic
    advisor -- an estimate subsequently disavowed by Mitchell Daniels, who heads the Office of
    Management and Budget.

    A second baseline is the $48-$93 billion estimate of the House Budget Committee's Democratic Staff,
    an estimate that covers only the cost of initial military operations for 30-60 days for a force
    numbering between 125,00-250,000 troops (one quarter to one half the size of the 1990-91 force),
    occupation at full strength for about two months after cessation of hostilities, plus the associated
    interest charges on the increased deficit for a ten year period. It does not include costs of
    subsequent peacekeeping, reconstruction, and humanitarian operations, inducements (e.g., debt
    forgiveness) to attract allies, or costs to the U.S. economy from higher oil prices. The staff's
    estimate does assume a war with low U.S. casualties, no employment by Iraq of chemical or biological
    weapons, and full access to Turkish and Persian Gulf bases, as in the 1990-1991 effort.

    A third baseline is a September 2002 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Assuming a
    370,000 member U.S. contingent, CBO said the cost of deploying, fighting for two months, and
    redeploying would be at least $37 billion. Each additional month of combat would add $8 billion. For
    a 250,000 strong force (more air power and fewer ground troops), the minimum cost would be $28
    billion, with each additional combat month costing $6 billion. Every month occupying a defeated Iraq
    tacks on $1-4 billion. This latter does not include any money for reconstruction or foreign aid.

    An incalculable wild card is the inevitable increase in world oil prices once war begins -- and for
    how long any spike in prices lasts. Partly, this will depend on how determined Iraqi resistance
    might be as well as the extent of damage to oil fields throughout the region -- especially in Iraq
    and potentially Saudi Arabia if Iraq targets Saudi oil facilities. As it is, the U.S. Department of
    Energy (DOE) estimates that 2002 will see the start of higher oil prices out through 2020 because of
    increased world demand. In just the last year, DOE raised its estimate of the cost of a barrel of
    oil in 2020 by $1.76 to $24.68. War in the Gulf would affect not only retail gasoline prices at the
    pump but also oil products for heating homes, industrial uses, and electricity generation.

    And then there is the cost of petroleum products for the U.S. military machine. In Fiscal Year 1999,
    the Pentagon bought 142.6 million barrels; in 2000, 104.2 million barrels; and in 2001, 134 million
    barrels. (By comparison, U.S. petroleum consumption in 2000 was 19.7 million barrels per day, which
    totals over 7 billion barrels for all of 2000.) If war comes again to the Persian Gulf, the
    military's consumption rate will spike, as it did in 1990-91 for Operation Desert Shield/Desert
    Storm. Then the Pentagon consumed 1,882,670,174 gallons of petroleum. At the industry standard of 42
    gallons of crude oil per barrel, that is the equivalent of 44.85 million barrels.

    Washington under the Bush administration consciously set out to model itself after big business.
    Recent corporate scandals, many involving the energy sector, have led stockholders to demand honest
    accounting from officials running various corporations. If stockholders/taxpayers can hold corporate
    officials accountable, then voters/consumers/taxpayers have an equal right to hold administration
    officials accountable. So far, only congressional watchdogs have raised the alarm. It's time --
    before the missiles start flying -- for the administration to speak about the real costs of the war
    it is contemplating.

    http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
     
  5. Me

    Me Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > > On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:25:38 -0700, Don Quijote wrote:
    > >
    > > > ('Natural Capitalism,' a book about environmentally-friendly, high-tech capitalism.)
    > > >
    > > > Propose what you may, say what you want, scream if you will... Natural Capitalism won't happen
    > > > because gas prices are low, real low. Actually they are subsidized so the 19th-century,
    > > > SUV-friendly capitalism is kept in place...
    > > >
    > > > Check it out...
    > > >
    > > > http://www.natcap.org/module.php?th...d=391&groupId=4
    > > >
    > > > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > __________________
    > > > "What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the indifference of the many" -M.L. King
    > > What people don't realize is our military (US) costs are huge to ensure cheap oil, they only
    > > look at the pump price and bitch about taxes.
    > >
    >
    > I dream of the day when the US is spending billions to fight over NiMH batteries and Hydrogen.

    Yup. Me too. Fossil fuel remains popular only because there is no real commitment to develop better
    and cleaner fuel for automobiles. The hybrid cars that Toyota and Honda make are a good step in the
    right direction, but they're still too expensive. A neighbor of mine has a Toyota Presis hybrid and
    he absolutely loves it; he gets something like 60MPG with it.
     
  6. aunt

    aunt Guest

    On 3 Jul 2003 12:25:38 -0700, [email protected] (Don Quijote) wrote:

    >('Natural Capitalism,' a book about environmentally-friendly, high-tech capitalism.)
    >
    >Propose what you may, say what you want, scream if you will... Natural Capitalism won't happen
    >because gas prices are low, real low. Actually they are subsidized so the 19th-century,
    >SUV-friendly capitalism is kept in place...
    >
    >Check it out...
    >
    >http://www.natcap.org/module.php?th...d=391&groupId=4
    >
    >http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
    >
    >
    >__________________
    >"What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the indifference of the many" -M.L. King

    Actually we pay about 40 cents per gallon in taxes!! Gas is actually more expensive than it
    should be.
     
  7. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    aunt, millie wrote:
    >
    > Actually we pay about 40 cents per gallon in taxes!! Gas is actually more expensive than it
    > should be.

    You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of externalities - I suggest that a course in basic
    economics is in order.

    Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
     
  8. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    Fuel prices in the United States are not "too low" or "artificially low." Such statements are lies
    from the Left used in the desire for the United States to far more heavily tax fuels as is done in
    Europe and elsewhere. Neither our fuel prices nor our AIDS or tuberculosis rates in the United
    States are "too low" or "artificially low" compared to rates in other nations where these rates or
    fuel prices are higher.

    Dave Simpson
     
  9. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    Tom Sherman wrote:

    > > Actually we pay about 40 cents per gallon in taxes!! Gas is actually more expensive than it
    > > should be.

    > You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of externalities - I suggest that a course in basic
    > economics is in order.

    Careful about the advice. Left-wing economics would entail
    "everything conceivable and fiction as well" externalities.

    Furthermore, who says fuel taxes are dedicated to paying for these alone, instead of, other than
    strict motor-vehicle uses such as roadway construction and maintenance, non-vehicle uses such as
    welfare, health care, or whatever other program politicians prefer?

    Dave Simpson
     
  10. Don Quijote

    Don Quijote Guest

    Me <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > I dream of the day when the US is spending billions to fight over NiMH batteries and Hydrogen.
    >
    > Yup. Me too. Fossil fuel remains popular only because there is no real commitment to develop
    > better and cleaner fuel for automobiles. The hybrid cars that Toyota and Honda make are a good
    > step in the right direction, but they're still too expensive. A neighbor of mine has a Toyota
    > Presis hybrid and he absolutely loves it; he gets something like 60MPG with it.

    I would enlist on that war... :)

    But seriously, the few hybrid vehicles available are a political statement to make up for their
    SUVs. Actually Toyota's got more mighty species from the Jurassic, than politically correct
    vehicles...

    http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
     
  11. Don Quijote

    Don Quijote Guest

    Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > aunt, millie wrote:
    > >
    > > Actually we pay about 40 cents per gallon in taxes!! Gas is actually more expensive than it
    > > should be.
    >
    > You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of externalities - I suggest that a course in basic
    > economics is in order.
    >
    > Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

    OK, maybe he can take some 'primer' in the beginning...

    Please start here...

    The Real Price Of Gas

    Executive Summary

    This report by the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) identifies and quantifies
    the many external costs of using motor vehicles and the internal combustion engine that are not
    reflected in the retail price Americans pay for gasoline. These are costs that consumers pay
    indirectly by way of increased taxes, insurance costs, and retail prices in other sectors.

    The report divides the external costs of gasoline usage into five primary areas: (1) Tax
    Subsidization of the Oil Industry; (2) Government Program Subsidies; (3) Protection Costs Involved
    in Oil Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services; (4) Environmental, Health, and Social Costs of Gasoline
    Usage; and (5) Other Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. Together, these external costs
    total $558.7 billion to $1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail price of gasoline,
    result in a per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14.

    Full Text...

    http://www.icta.org/projects/trans/rlprexsm.htm
     
  12. Ian St. John

    Ian St. John Guest

    "Dave Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Fuel prices in the United States are not "too low" or "artificially low." Such statements are lies
    > from the Left used in the desire for the United States to far more heavily tax fuels as is done in
    > Europe and elsewhere. Neither our fuel prices nor our AIDS or tuberculosis rates in the United
    > States are "too low" or "artificially low" compared to rates in other nations where these rates or
    > fuel prices are higher.

    Dave Simpleton spews again. You think that he would be embarassed by his incompetence and
    ignorance by how...

    http://www.bcintlcorp.com/pdf/Oil_Subsidies.pdf "U.S. consumers pay some of the lowest gasoline
    prices in the world. This is in part because of federal subsidies for the oil industry, which are
    financed by U.S. taxpayers. This strategy has encouraged the use of fossil fuels at the expense of
    domestically produced alternative fuels such as biomass ethanol. Major subsidies are provided to the
    oil industry through tax breaks, financial support for overseas activities, maintenance of the
    Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and various government programs and services that directly support the
    industry's infrastructure. The 13 largest government subsidies for oil, which totaled between $4.3
    and $10.3 billion in 1995, account for 85% of all federal oil subsidies. These figures exclude the
    costs of defending Persian Gulf oil supplies, which are estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers between an
    additional $10.5 and $23.3 billion annually."
     
  13. Don Quijote

    Don Quijote Guest

  14. Mtv

    Mtv Guest

    Ian St. John wrote:
    > "Dave Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>Fuel prices in the United States are not "too low" or "artificially low." Such statements are lies
    >>from the Left used in the desire for the United States to far more heavily tax fuels as is done in
    >>Europe and elsewhere. Neither our fuel prices nor our AIDS or tuberculosis rates in the United
    >>States are "too low" or "artificially low" compared to rates in other nations where these rates or
    >>fuel prices are higher.
    >
    >
    > Dave Simpleton spews again. You think that he would be embarassed by his incompetence and
    > ignorance by how...
    >
    > http://www.bcintlcorp.com/pdf/Oil_Subsidies.pdf "U.S. consumers pay some of the lowest gasoline
    > prices in the world. This is in part because of federal subsidies for the oil industry, which are
    > financed by U.S. taxpayers. This strategy has encouraged the use of fossil fuels at the expense of
    > domestically produced alternative fuels such as biomass ethanol. Major subsidies are provided to
    > the oil industry through tax breaks, financial support for overseas activities, maintenance of the
    > Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and various government programs and services that directly support
    > the industry's infrastructure. The 13 largest government subsidies for oil, which totaled between
    > $4.3 and $10.3 billion in 1995, account for 85% of all federal oil subsidies. These figures
    > exclude the costs of defending Persian Gulf oil supplies, which are estimated to cost U.S.
    > taxpayers between an additional $10.5 and $23.3 billion annually."
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Good case for drilling in ANWR.

    Marv
     
  15. On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:50:09 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> writes:

    > "Dave Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Fuel prices in the United States are not "too low" or "artificially low." Such statements are
    > > lies from the Left used in the desire for the United States to far more heavily tax fuels as is
    > > done in Europe and elsewhere. Neither our fuel prices nor our AIDS or tuberculosis rates in the
    > > United States are "too low" or "artificially low" compared to rates in other nations where these
    > > rates or fuel prices are higher.
    >
    > Dave Simpleton spews again. You think that he would be embarassed by his incompetence and
    > ignorance by how...

    Have you ever actually read what is included in 'The real cost of gasoline' report as externalities
    of gasoline? [2]

    You know, silly things like fire trucks, police and EMS. ''These externalized police, fire, and
    emergency response expenditures add up to $27.2 to $38.2 billion annually.'' or ''reduced visibility
    ($6.1 to $44.5 billion)'' and ''noise pollution ($6 to $12 billion)''.

    And of course, they ''Using legal petitions, comments and litigation CTA is at the forefront of the
    battles to ..... halt the use of the combustion engine'' include urban sprawl as an externality:

    ''The costs of sprawl include: additional environmental degradation (up to $58.4 billion), aesthetic
    degradation of cultural sites (up to $11.7 billion), social deterioration (up to $58.4 billion),
    additional municipal costs (up to $53.8 billion), additional transportation costs (up to $145
    billion), and the barrier effect ($11.7 to $23.4 billion).''

    > http://www.bcintlcorp.com/pdf/Oil_Subsidies.pdf "U.S. consumers pay some of the lowest gasoline
    > prices in the world. This is in part because of federal subsidies for the oil industry, which are
    > financed by U.S. taxpayers. This strategy has encouraged the use of fossil fuels at the expense of
    > domestically produced alternative fuels such as biomass ethanol.

    Aka. Our competition is too cheap; we need to force their prices be doubled to be able to compete.
    Incidently, I note that almost all of the externalities of gasoline would also apply in this
    hypothetical ethanol world, unless transportation became so expensive that only the highly affluent
    could own their own home away from the city.

    > Major subsidies are provided to the oil industry through tax breaks, financial support for
    > overseas activities, maintenance of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and various government
    > programs and services that directly support the industry's infrastructure. The 13 largest
    > government subsidies for oil, which totaled between $4.3 and $10.3 billion in 1995, account for
    > 85% of all federal oil subsidies. These figures exclude the costs of defending Persian Gulf oil
    > supplies, which are estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers between an additional $10.5 and $23.3 billion
    > annually."

    Sure. Now, have you looked at the other side of the story... Like what the yearly gasoline
    taxes revenue?

    At about 8,000,000 barrels/day of gasoline[1] production, thats 3 billion barrels a year, or 160
    billion gallons. At a mere $.40 tax per gallon the government obtains 64 *billion* dollars of
    gasoline taxes a year. 64 is about TWICE the largest numbers you just gave
    (10.3+23.3), and four times the smaller numbers (4.3+10.5)

    If anything, gasoline taxes subsidize other programs, not the reverse.

    Scott

    [11] http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/curren-
    t/txt/table_s04_a.txt
    [12] http://www.icta.org/projects/trans/rlprexsm.htm
     
  16. Don Quijote

    Don Quijote Guest

    [email protected] (Dave Simpson) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Fuel prices in the United States are not "too low" or "artificially low." Such statements are lies
    > from the Left used in the desire for the United States to far more heavily tax fuels as is done in
    > Europe and elsewhere. Neither our fuel prices nor our AIDS or tuberculosis rates in the United
    > States are "too low" or "artificially low" compared to rates in other nations where these rates or
    > fuel prices are higher.

    The revenues from higher taxes could be used to fight poverty. But, of course, who cares about it...

    Subsidized prices, urban sprawl and poverty are as American as Coke...

    Urban Woes, Ecological Blight Civil-Rights Activists, Conservationists Share Same Goals

    By john a. powell

    Published Sunday, April 2, 2000, The Miami Herald

    Given Florida's exploding population, its severe housing shortage and its fragile ecosystem, the
    state has appropriately begun to wade into the issue of urban sprawl. However, the environmentally
    driven smart growth measures being explored by Floridians will not alone reverse the destructive
    environmental forces of sprawl. Addressing social justice must be taken on as a conservation
    measure as well.

    By improving life in our cities, we may also be able to save our ecosystems.

    Suburban sprawl, along with its counterpart metropolitan fragmentation, is the greatest obstacle to
    achieving social justice in our nation today.

    As people and businesses with the economic means sprawl away from central cities, they settle into
    developing suburban jurisdictions divesting the cities of valuable resources, as well as needed tax
    bases. They leave behind low-income minorities in high-need, resource-depleted central cities,
    creating fragmented metropolitan regions with enormous inequities between central cities and
    developing suburbs. The resulting borders become barriers, walling off greater social needs in the
    central cities while enabling the developing suburbs to amass valuable resources.

    Many are surprised to learn that the destructive and wasteful process of sprawl has been heavily
    subsidized by federal, state, and local governments. Since the early 1940s, our national policy has
    supported the proliferation of urban sprawl and the attendant flow of dollars from central cities.

    Only recently have we begun to question the wisdom of spending billions to build new roads, schools,
    and infrastructure at the edge of our metropolitan regions while divesting from our cities. And only
    recently have we begun to appreciate that what is happening in our urban cores affects development
    at our regions' peripheries.

    This relationship between suburban sprawl and the decline of our central cities and has gone largely
    unnoticed by those currently engaged in the anti-sprawl movement and as well as by social justice
    advocates. But this must change if both groups are to be successful in advancing their interests.

    The epicenter of the sprawl debate is currently in the suburbs, where issues of racial and social
    justice are given little attention, if they are considered at all. Suburban concerns with sprawl,
    such as traffic congestion and conservation, are given priority at the expense of such concerns as
    racial segregation, lack of affordable housing, increases in urban concentrated poverty, and
    segregation of growing regional opportunities (like well-paying jobs) away from areas of racialized
    concentrated poverty.

    Sprawl and regional fragmentation on the one hand, and concentrated poverty and social inequity on
    the other hand, are flip sides of the same dynamic.

    The federal government defines concentrated poverty as a census tract with 40 percent or greater of
    its residents living below poverty level. It is important to note that research clearly demonstrates
    that this level of neighborhood poverty functions differently and much more destructively than
    individual poverty.

    Concentrated poverty is also a racial issue. The vast majority of those living in concentrated
    poverty are either black or Latino. When the government first put its national purse behind sprawl,
    it was explicitly stated in racial terms. The suburbs were designated for whites and heavily
    subsidized by federal mortgage programs, while the cities, where minorities primarily lived, were
    redlined and excluded from participating in these federal programs. With the white middle-class --
    and more recently the black and Hispanic middle-class -- driving sprawl, low-income blacks have been
    isolated in the declining core away from jobs and resources.

    Southern Florida faces increasing social and economic disparities between its growing suburbs and
    its struggling cities and inner-ring suburbs. In Miami, concentrated poverty has more than doubled
    between 1980-90, the number of census tracts where the poverty level was 40% or higher increasing
    from 14 to 33. Of the 148,023 people living in Miami's high poverty census tracts in 1990, over 93%
    were either African American or Hispanic. Currently, the largest concentrations of non-Hispanic
    blacks in the region are located in the unincorporated areas and municipalities north of Miami.
    These areas are also experiencing the greatest levels of poverty.

    Child poverty rates in the region, as measured by elementary school children eligible for free and
    reduced school meal programs, confirm these patterns with more recent figures. In 1996, of the 379
    elementary schools in the South Florida region, 56 reported more than 88 percent of their students
    eligible for free and reduced meal programs. Forty-five of the 56 schools were located in the city
    of Miami and its inner suburbs.

    Unfortunately, these trends are projected to intensify in the coming years, which will make Southern
    Florida one of the most racially and economically stratified areas in the country.

    In Southern Florida, as in most of our nations' sprawling and fragmented regions, the social justice
    perspective is largely absent from the local anti-sprawl discussion despite these growing
    disparities. This omission must be corrected to improve both the health of Florida's ecosystem and
    the region, and to reverse the trends of concentrated poverty and isolation of people of color from
    the growing regional opportunities.

    Currently, anti-sprawl and civil rights agendas overlap in peripheral ways, resulting in
    half-hearted gains on each front. To remedy this, regional actors driving the current anti-sprawl
    agenda must expand the discussion of sprawl to address issues of social justice and urban decay.
    Civil rights leaders must also put suburban sprawl and fragmentation on their agenda -- both to
    achieve their goals and to engage anti-sprawl activists in social justice. Neither camp can afford
    to ignore the other's concerns.

    The Institute on Race & Poverty has initiated a Regional Equity Project to address civil rights
    issues by challenging sprawl and fragmentation trends on both national and local levels. One of our
    goals is to connect local civil rights activists with anti-sprawl activists to attend to their
    complementary concerns.

    Success on both fronts requires increased understanding and a stronger relationship between social
    justice and anti-sprawl supporters. Anti-sprawl advocates cannot hope to curb sprawl without
    addressing regional inequities that are both causes and consequences of sprawl, while civil rights
    advocates cannot hope to achieve social justice and revitalization of urban cores without addressing
    the damaging effects of sprawl and fragmentation on low-income communities of color.

    To paraphrase a statement made by Detroit Mayor, Dennis Archer, we cannot save our ecosystem unless
    we save our cities.

    john a. powell, Executive Director, Institute on Race & Poverty and Marvin J. Sonosky Professor of
    Law and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota Law School in Minneapolis, Minn. powell worked
    in Miami from 1981-1983 as an adjunct professor of law at the University of Miami Law School and as
    Executive Director of Legal Services of Greater Miami.

    http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
     
  17. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    Ian St. John wrote:

    > Dave Simpleton spews again. You think that he would be embarassed by his incompetence and
    > ignorance by how...

    That's Einstein compared to you. It figures you couldn't or wouldn't handle the most basic issues.
    All you can do is lie and continue to be Net trash.

    Dave Simpson
     
  18. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    MTV wrote:

    > Good case for drilling in ANWR.

    The existence of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) is the best case for drilling in ANWR.
    Put it to all the use we can get out of it before its service life has ended.

    Dave Simpson
     
  19. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    Scott A Crosby wrote:

    > If anything, gasoline taxes subsidize other programs, not the reverse.

    Ian doesn't know shit. He just posts shit, such as the commonly-misused word "fascists" (he sees
    one in every nook and cranny of the White House and most Congressional buildings these days) and
    makes an asshole of himself whenever he's upset for no legitimate reason.

    Dave Simpson
     
  20. Ian St. John

    Ian St. John Guest

    "Dave Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > MTV wrote:
    >
    > > Good case for drilling in ANWR.
    >
    > The existence of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) is the best case for drilling in ANWR.
    > Put it to all the use we can get out of it before its service life has ended.

    You idiots are still too dumb to be believed. You are counting on oil or gas that has yet to be
    discovered or even realistically assessed. The wild models used to try to pretend that their were
    huge untapped reserves *probably* in the ANWR was just a ploy to open up drilling and gain huge
    subsidies, irrespective of any actual discoveries. This is how the game is played.

    The SAME models predicted oil in a North Slope patch that turned out to be another batch of dry
    holes. Not sure how much they made on subsidies there. What a bunch of loons you are. Justifying a
    pipeline on phantom oil deposits generated by speculative fictions.

    Tell me. How much oil was pumped from the one exploratory well that WAS drilled in the ANWR? Would
    they have chosen a poor location or the prime spot? Why then, was there no oil reported? Why did
    they pack up and leave? How does this affect the probability of finding oil in the next well?

    >
    >
    > Dave Simpleton
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...