Farmers not always the biggest proponents of land preservation…

Farmers are not always the biggest proponents of preserving farm land or wide open spaces.

Sure they want to preserve what they have as long as it is providing their livelihood, but they also look to the future when they might want to retire or when farming seems no longer to be profitable.

So any restrictions on what they can do to their land, such as create housing tracts or shopping centers, is often met with resistance. After all, their land is capital. I am of course talking about those who own the land they farm, and not all farmers think alike.

But in my own neck of the woods there is an ongoing controversy about putting in a shopping center in what is now still a fairly rural and open-spaced area. There has been more than one effort through the years to develop this land. At one time there was a move to build a new truck stop across the street from an existing one there.

I can’t keep of track of what all the plans are. I know there was a plan to install something called an auto mall, and there is an existing plan for a shopping center.

(Actually, I know what an auto mall is. And they are ugly! Don‘t get me wrong. Cars are great things, but I see enough of them already. Give me the wide open spaces anytime. And we already have plenty of car lots in the area.)

Back to the farmers. Those who oppose the development often talk about preserving farm land or agriculture. But along the freeway there is some heavy farm equipment parked and a sign proclaiming, “preserve real agriculture” and vote for the development. Kind of sounds like a contradiction. But I think the idea is that farmers need capital to farm and if you devalue their capital, they can’t stay in business.

This also begs the question of what constitutes “real agriculture”.  Apparently to some it means large acreage operations with big expensive equipment, and probably run by people wearing caps with emblems of chemical companies on them. Raising a home garden would not qualify in their view. Or maybe running some type of small-scale organic operation for local consumption would not qualify either.

I’m not against big agriculture. As I have stated previously in my blog, I owe my living to it. I haul produce up and down the interstate. And nearly all of this produce comes from large commercial operations, many of them corporate farms, or family operations that are really corporate in size and nature. And certainly big agriculture has its place. It’s a necessity to feed the millions who do not live directly off the land.

I personally am opposed to the proposed commercial development because I think it is senseless to despoil the view, the aesthetic value, the agricultural potential, and the wild land that supports the ecosystem upon which we all depend (people do not seem to realize or accept this on a large scale).

Sure commercial development is necessary to the economy and to serve the public, but there is no shortage of space in the existing nearby urban areas. Many existing and relatively new shopping centers have empty buildings. And the distances people have to travel here are not far, that is to say the people who live in the area where the shopping center is proposed do not have far to travel.

If the locals — not the outside developers — would travel constantly as I do to the San Francisco Bay Area or LA, they would see the contrast to completely paved over land and the wide open spaces we have here. I believe the quality of life is much better here.

In addition, if land is to be developed it would seem that industrial development that both might produce high-paying jobs and actually produce something would be a better option. And we do have an undeveloped, or I should say, unfilled, industrial park for that.

The jobs this proposed shopping center would create would be relatively low-paying service sector jobs. The proponents point to all the relatively well-paying construction jobs it would create, but I ask, how many times do you plan to build this thing? Of course maybe they mean that is just the start. They won’t be done till the whole county is paved over.

The so-called service economy makes no sense (at least on low-end services). I mean it is like an army of clerks and no rifle-toting soldiers. Both are needed, but the solider comes first.

I just read a story today about the kind of farmer land use conflict playing out in New York State where some farmers want to be able to sell or lease, I guess, the mineral rights on their land for natural gas fracking, a controversial process of man-made hydraulic fracturing of rock, that reportedly in some cases causes environmental damage, such as water and air contamination. It’s being done in neighboring Pennsylvania, with mixed reviews. Some farmers enjoy the profit, while others report major damage to their land and livelihoods.

It seems to me long-range planning is the answer as far and land use conflicts go, so everyone knows what the rules are going in and so the best use can be made of the land. In cases where people are deprived of use of their own land due to new restrictions, possibly some type of compensation would be in order.

One thing I should add is that the area proposed for development locally which I was referring to is not in intensive agriculture overall — although there is some – and many former farms have already been turned into suburban acreages.

But again, long-range planning and then a will to stick to it, would help.

But in another life I was a local newspaper reporter. When the big money and folks in suits come in with rolled up plans and lawyers, planning schmaning! Money talks.

And it’s never fair. Back then I lived in a nearby county. I saw this old sloppily-dressed and grizzled farmer (I’m not putting down farmers; this guy was just sloppy — he was a local character) come before the powers that be with a plan to create a housing tract on his orchard land. Like me, they cited the need to preserve ag land. But I note that years later another rural landowner in the same area divided his land into housing tracts — must have had better lawyers.

And it’s also who you are. One time a group of local doctors and dentists came in with their rolled up plans for a development in a rural agriculturally-zoned area, and the local county supervisors nearly swooned. Whatever you want is fine with us.

Really what we need in all of this is whatever is best for all of us and God’s green earth.

Must we tear up and make blighted our earth and then depend upon computer-generated virtual reality?

 

BLOGGER’S NOTE:

What I have written here refers to specific geography, but it could apply to anywhere.

————————

Once there was a beautiful valley with a city and towns surrounded by beautiful countryside with farm fields and orchards — a Garden of Eden of sorts. Today it is a mass of concrete, urban sprawl, and much urban decay. Do you know the way to San Jose?

Once there was a bustling farm town in the center of California’s Central Valley, surrounded by rich farm lands. It had (and still does) an arch with the slogan on it that read or reads: “Water, Wealth, Contentment, Health”. That was penned by a great-uncle of mine. He won $5 in a city slogan contest back in the early 20^th Century. I can’t say whether Modesto was ever a pretty town — it hasn’t been in my time, but overall, it is one ugly place today — there are good parts too, but overshadowed by the ugly. Another victim of urban sprawl and then decay. At least the farm lands around it survive. Zoning regulations have protected much of the farm land from being concreted over.

Much the same story exists in Fresno, another major city in the Central Valley.

I spent many of my early formative years in Tulare, another Central Valley town. Back then (1950s) it had an overall clean look to it. It was a mixture of humanity, with its poor sections, and with its racially-divided sections, such as Colored Town and Mexican Town, its middle-of-the-road sections, and ritzier sections. And then as you drove out of town, there were farms fields, much of them planted to alfalfa and feed corn (dairying being a major agricultural pursuit there) and cotton, and they were just beginning to make plantings of walnut orchards. Toward the foothills, citrus groves had long been a major crop. I’ve driven through there is recent years, and it seems the town is still in pretty good shape, but growth and urban sprawl has also injured its aesthetics to some extent. And the urban sprawl has even reached into the farm fields.

Agriculture in the Central Valley, in fact, has largely turned from an endeavor with bucolic atmosphere to just another major industrial effort, complete with the smog and ugliness one might expect in a factory town shortly after the industrial revolution. And that is why it is good to preserve much natural, wild habitat from even agriculture. It not only is aesthetically pleasing, but supports all the bugs and creatures that make up our ecosystem upon which we all depend for life itself, whether all of us realize it or not.

And now the people who always want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot have their eyes on the beautiful area where I now reside, Redding, Ca., at the very north end of the Central Valley, which is actually the Sacramento Valley. (Oh, yeah, Sacramento, our state capital, is a beautiful city in its central core, surrounded by a mixture of palatable urban sprawl, and some awful, decayed urban sprawl.)

I wrote about this once or twice before. But developers (read, take the money and run) want to turn an area south of here, known as the Churn Creek Bottom, into one big shopping center/auto mall/ strip mall/convenience store/big box store/urban jungle. And this while a fairly new shopping section in the city, adjacent to where I live, has many empty buildings (as is the case in other areas of the city). It’s called leap frog development. You make a shopping center and then it gets blighted and you move to another one out in the country and so on, leaving behind urban decay and tearing up farmlands in the process.

Now I mentioned where I live. Sure it was once in a natural state and was torn up to build houses and apartments and shopping areas. But it was not prime agricultural land and it was contiguous to the existing city. And yes, people have to live and work and shop somewhere. And that is why we have towns and towns do grow.

Fortunately, so far, it seems that the powers that be have done a pretty good job of allowing growth but preserving the natural aesthetics of the city of Redding, which is nearly surrounded by mountains and has a river that runs through it — the Sacramento.

But times are tough economically and there is the appeal of commercial development that promises to bring in tax revenue.

The Churn Creek Bottom is outside the city limits for the most part, but the county government has its eyes on that revenue.

To be fair here, the Bottom has already seen development. It is no longer a simple rural agricultural area. In fact, I don’t think there is any longer much (some, though) serious agricultural efforts there (although to the extent some people have their own vegetable gardes, I consider that serious). It has been subdivided into sort of ranchettes as it were, for the most part. But it is still a nice green buffer zone between towns.

There have been multiple efforts in recent years to install shopping centers in the Bottom area (and actually there already is some scale of commercial development there). But as the situation stands now, a prime spot on the Interstate has been approved for development, but due to some opposition, is the subject of a local ballot measure.

Property owners are often pitted against each other in these kinds of cases. Some want to preserve the aesthetics they have and others want a right to cash in a sell to developers.

And that begs the question: are property rights, that is the right of one to do anything he or she wishes with his property, absolute?

The answer of course is “no”.

For one, the concept of land use planning and zoning, to accomplish that, has long been around. People don’t want to live in a nice quiet neighborhood and then have a cement plant put in next door. Airports have been pushed out when housing tracts surround them, due to safety concerns — a result of poor planning.

It seems to me a compromise is always in order. There must be some way to compensate landowners for the loss in potential value and preserve quality of life at the same time. Maybe a tax break for preserving land?

And as to the argument over whether someone bought land as an investment, with the idea that some day he or she would cash in, that is why long-range land use plans are needed and should be adhered to.　

Also, if you are religious, I ask this question: who really owns that property, you or God?

You are but God’s caretaker.

And I hope the powers that be (to include the majority of the electorate) do God’s work in the Churn Creek Bottom issue.

　

P.s.

Even though I do not belong to a church and even though I am not a religious person in the strict sense, my God being somewhere between the biblical version and some mystical, amorphous being or entity we can call “Mother Nature”, I often invoke the name of God almighty.

You know, there just is a force out there bigger and more important than we as individuals.

P.s. P.s.

And must we destroy our environment and our humanity in the name of progress and then have to depend upon some computer-generated virtual reality?

So Irene was not as powerful as feared, what’s all the carping about?

UPDATE TO THE UPDATES:

Been so busy with my real job I have not had any time to do new posts since posting this, but as of now on 9-1-11 I read that the federal government is going to be stuck with billions of dollars in repair costs because so many people did not have flood insurance. Also, I saw a newspaper headline that said the Republicans are going to try to inject politics by refusing to fund extra money for hurricane repair unless they can get and equal amount of tax cuts. Have not had time to digest all that yet. Hopefully in a day or so I will have time to post more on this and other things, such as, and what about that Jon Huntsman?

(And I note that Wikipedia now lists 55 as the total U.S. death toll from Irene.)

UPDATE (8:39 P.M. PDT):

For a hurricane some say was over hyped, it seems awful deadly, with the U.S. death toll at 40 (with flooding causing much of the danger and damage) at the last I read.

UPDATE (8:24 A.M. PDT):

While not as strong as feared, Hurricane Irene has caused billions of dollars of damage to U.S. territory from Puerto Rico to Vermont, and there is massive flooding now in Vermont and flooding elsewhere, according to news reports this morning. Millions are without power, and it could be up to a week for some customers to get it restored, and there is expected to be damage to natural gas lines. Supposedly it’s been a boost for the economy since people bought supplies for preparation and are buying materials for repair and preparation for the next one and because there is a need for public works projects to repair damage. I don’t see how that would be a net gain, though. An economy based on disaster?

———————————————–

I’m somewhat puzzled by the carping that officials overreacted to Hurricane Irene and that President Obama was just trying to make political hay out of it, showing that he was in charge and on top of things and there to save people and all.

As anyone who has ever listened to or viewed weather forecasts knows, weather predictions are still an inexact science.

The early reports classified Hurricane Irene as category 3 I believe and it was thought it could become category 4 or 5 (5 being the highest or worst). But by the time it made landfall over the last 24 hours or so it was downgraded to a category 1 and then a little later to a tropical storm.

In an unprecedented move, Mayor Bloomberg called for the evacuation of certain low-lying areas of Manhattan and shut down the mass transit system to include the subways. People all over the middle Atlantic were advised by governors to evacuate. Millions of people were affected.

The federal government did some advance work, with the president taking the necessary actions and giving the necessary orders.

But people, particularly in parts of the country away from the eastern seaboard, scoffed at what they saw as exaggerated predictions and unnecessary panic and political posturing.

At least eighteen people have died in events attributed to the hurricane and there has been much flooding and property damage and power outages, but it has not been as bad as it was feared in might have been.

But what if it had and all the preparations were not done?

There would have been all kinds of accusations of failed leadership.

While you can’t go into emergency mode every time there is a hint of foul weather, when the experts predict a good chance of catastrophic weather it is far better to be prepared than not and far better to be ready to swing into action once the magnitude of the damage is seen.

During and after the infamous Katrina several years ago in New Orleans when President George W. Bush was in office, all levels of government, local, state, and federal, fell down on the job, to put it mildly.

I could never figure out how people could be trapped but reporters could get in and out and how our military, to include our first line of homeland security and defense, the National Guard, could not have been rushed in with all its helicopters and amphibious equipment (some of it tied up in the Middle East).

Dr. Bill Wattenburg on KGO Radio, San Francisco, said Saturday night that at least the folks in New York and elsewhere in the path of the hurricane got a little lesson on disaster preparedness. He preaches that everyone should be prepared for disaster with food and supplies of water at their homes and even supplies to carry with them, lest they get stuck out on the road. His main concern is not weather but some type of nuclear device that is likely to be set off by terrorists. He always says that he and all the experts feel that it is not a question of if but just of when such a terrorist strike will happen. In such an event there would be such chaos and panic, with people likely fleeing coastal areas, where a strike is most probable, to the interior, but with nor real place to go, that authorities would not be in a position to help anyone, he warns.

But talking about weather disasters, he contrasted what happened in Katrina in New Orleans with extensive flooding in North Dakota. Up in the northland folks were able to get together and help themselves, rather than wait for Washington to rescue them (although I an sure federal resources helped too).

And I think that is the way it is in the more rural areas. People tend to be more self-reliant. Maybe that is why conservatism tends to be strong out in the hinterlands, with a more socialized, governmental approach popular in urban areas.

And then a lot of us are in between. We do the best we can, but in an emergency we need all the help we can get.

Am I personally ready for the big one? No way.

There is a danger that with all the hype that Irene got that it might be a little like the boy who called wolf. No one will listen next time.

But we all have to think about being prepared and being as self-reliant as possible.

And I applaud the president for showing leadership, but don’t expect him to get much credit for it.

If you don’t like California don’t let us hold you back, and the Great Money God wins again as shopping center developers prepare to pave paradise while cities decay…

A lot of people talk about how great things are in Texas, how many jobs there are there, and that they don’t have an income tax and don’t put onerous regulations on business.

I think they also talk about Idaho where the climate is apparently more friendly to gun ownership.

I was born and raised and have lived almost my whole life in California.

I for one would be glad to see as many people as want to leave.

More air for me to breathe here.

A lot of the malcontents probably originally came from somewhere else.

As far as I am concerned they probably should go back home.

I like Oregon but probably would not move there. I think too many Californians have already done that and some of them maybe have brought their own ruin-the-land ways with them. I mean we have done our best to do that right here in California by paving paradise and putting up a parking lot (s). Given time that may happen in Oregon, more than it already has.

Too many people is what has spoiled California.

So all of you who want to leave — so long, have a nice life.

I feel sorry, almost, for those who will have their paradise invaded, though.

Oh, I recently did a post about the Board of Supervisors holding a hearing on approval of  a rezone to put up a shopping center in a green belt between two cities in my home county here in Northern California. They voted in favor.

The Great Money God always wins (at least here on Earth).

Despite the claim of so many to be good Christians, what they really worship is money, not God nor his creations.

We really need that shopping center while ones in our town are becoming vacant.

The developers do their dirty work and then move on.

——————

ADD 1:

What I am referring to as far as development in this post is the Churn Creek Bottom in Shasta County, California. Redding, where I live, is the county seat. I guess a citizens group is still trying to put the kibosh on the shopping center through a petition drive. Indeed I was at a small market in the area yesterday and a woman had a table set up. I personally don’t sign petitions. I also found it curious that on the web one group who seemed to be anti-shopping center referred to itself as the Tea Party. I thought the tea baggers were a conservative faction and I always thought conservatives were for money no matter what it means to the environment (you know, the Earth heals itself and all). Actually I just looked at the Tea Party post again and I guess someone was giving an anti-shopping center talk to them. What their actual position is I don’t know, but it seems by the way they posted it they are against. An interesting thing the speaker said is that the center would not create new jobs because it would just take away jobs from stores closing in the nearby city. Also it won’t even mean many local construction jobs because for some reason developers use mostly outside contractors and labor. Also it will suck away more sales taxes from the nearby cities. Redding is already cuting police and firefighters for lack of revenue. But, anyway,  here is a link about the petition drive: http://www.krcrtv.com/news/28842944/detail.html

ADD 2:

I previously gave my views on such development as I refer to in this post in a previous post: http://tonywalther.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/while-the-cities-become-blighted-developers-move-to-pave-paradise-and-put-up-a-parking-lot…/

While the cities become blighted, developers move to pave paradise and put up a parking lot…

They’re at it again, trying to pave paradise and put up a parking lot. In the county where I live there is a nice, mostly green stretch between the city where I live and the one to the south.

It’s not all beautiful and it is not all in a natural state. There are some junkie places. There is the remnants of an old dairy farm, which was not all that pretty when it was functioning, especially in its final years, but which is a downright eyesore now.

But there is a lot of open land, called bottom land — a creek (not a river) runs through it — well actually a river, the Sacramento River, does form a boundary of the area I am talking about, so I guess a river does run through (or by) it after all.

——————

ADD 1: The specific area I am referring to is called the Churn Creek Bottom, between Redding and Anderson, Ca.

——————

But the point here is not this particular area, necessarily; it’s the idea that so-called undeveloped land has to be turned into shopping centers and what they call auto malls. And this even when there are acres of abandoned or nearly abandoned shopping centers right within the cities, especially in the one where I live.

It is a terrible waste of natural resources and destruction of the environment and contributes to blight and contributes to overall ugliness and has a deleterious effect on the quality of life. It makes the cities uglier, with all the abandoned buildings, and it makes the countryside uglier with all the asphalt and concrete — I mean we need both in our modern society, but not on every inch of God’s earth (I did not say green earth, because even in its natural state, not all of earth is green).

Over the years there has been development in this green zone, as it were. There is a truck stop, and there have been many proposals to build commercial projects around it, including the current one to build a shopping center, a shopping center that in no way is needed. We have plenty in the area, and as I have said, we also have a lot of abandoned buildings in shopping centers in the area, and these buildings are not all that old.

And that is how development spreads in heretofore green zones. Once any commercial project goes in, developers use that as a toe hold and say: one more development right next to it won’t change things, and then another and another and so on.

It’s really crazy. A lot of that abandonment of relatively new shopping centers came around 2008 with the great economic upheaval of the time. And now, even though that upheaval is in no way over, especially where I live, some of the  powers that be — especially professional developers and land speculators — want to leap frog out into the hinterlands and cover it all with concrete and asphalt.

Oh they say it creates jobs. Well those jobs would still be there if the businesses were located in the already-existing shopping centers. And those jobs are usually, make that always, relatively low paid. And I never have understood an economy, whether it be local or national, based on support services. You have to have something to support.

(In my area the reason the service economy works at all is because we have a lot of government workers due to the fact there are a lot of public lands in the surrounding mountains, and we have a lot of “equity” people who cashed in years ago by selling their houses in the LA and Bay areas.)

I believe in preserving farmland, and much of the area I am talking about is prime farmland. But the argument that prohibiting development there would be just to preserve farmland is not convincing to even me. For much of the area has been subdivided into small parcels, some of them called “ranchettes”, which for the most part do not produce food or fiber, with the exception that a lot of people raise vegetable gardens and I think some sell their stuff at local farmers’ markets, and that is worthwhile, I think. But at least the area is still relatively green and open, even with that subdivision of properties. It would be a waste of land just as bad as shopping centers, though, if it all were just little horse farms — and nothing against little horse farms per se — but that is not the case.

There is a lot of opposition from the local homeowners there, I understand. And of course there is a little hypocrisy there in a way. I mean I got my little green space, made possible by breaking up economically productive farms, now no one else can come in.

But the bottom line is the area overall is still beautiful and much of it in at least a semi-natural state, so it helps preserve the ecosystem, which is vital to the preservation of mankind, as well as quality of life, and there still is food-producing agriculture going on (not too much fiber, maybe, save for a few sheep; we don‘t grow cotton here).

I’m a long-haul truck driver and I see the difference between areas that preserve green belts and the ones that don’t. I prefer the green belts.

The oft-cited example of man ruining paradise is San Jose. The Santa Clara Valley used to be filled with farmlands and orchards. The vast majority of people lived and did their shopping in towns, such as San Jose. Today from San Francisco down the peninsula to San Jose it is one concrete and asphalt jungle (with some hidden islands of beauty), and overall not at all pretty.

And let’s don’t even talk about the LA basin.

Okay, when I was a mere child in 1956 my family went to Disneyland, not long after it had opened. It was in the country, surrounded by citrus groves. We also went to Knotts Berry Farm and it was really a kind of farm at the time, in the middle of the countryside.

Today you descend the Tehachapi Mountains into a basin with hundreds of miles of virtually nothing but concrete and asphalt, with only a little green space here and there. And it is not pretty for the most part. And with all the traffic, and pollution, to include smog, it is not all that healthy either.

Why people would be so eager to pave paradise in my neck of the woods is curious, except that often it is developers who have no local interest and just want to make money and landowners who see it as their retirement money — and they can move elsewhere if they don’t like what it becomes.

Now it is not always fair to put burdensome restrictions on private land and limit the right of landowners to make money on their investments. Sometimes tax incentives (and in other blogs I have called those tax shifts) are used to promote the conservation of farmland or green space.

Also it is important to have long-range land use planning. That way people know from the get-go what they can do with their land (of course unless the zoning is changed while they already own it). Also you get a more efficient and compatible use of land. Not good to locate houses next to a cement plant, or in my area, rock quarries are often controversial (but of course needed). And airports are often threatened by safety concerns once houses surround them.

But we do have planning where I live. But the way that works is that people who want to get around zoning hire developers and lawyers who specialize in getting around restrictions. I saw this when I worked as a newspaper reporter. When you see the suits and those folks with rolled up plans, watch out.

Where I live there is plenty of room for both commercial development, primarily within the existing cities, and farmland, as well as other forms of open space, and living room too. We have an empty, but ready-to-go industrial park on the edge of town.

But the leap-frog development, which leaves past developed areas blighted and gobbles up prime open space, is bad all the way around.

P.s.

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors has a re-zone of the Churn Creek Bottom property from agriculture to commercial on their agenda Monday evening in a meeting beginning at 5 p.m. at the courthouse in Redding, Ca. For more information: http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/BOS_Agenda/publishedmeetings.htm

P.s. P.s.

And thanks to Redding.com (the Record-Searchlight newspaper’s website) for keeping the public informed — that’s how I knew about this. But all opinions and descriptions and all content in this blog post are mine, except for the meeting date and the fact that there will be a meeting, which of course is just public record.

Huntsman says conservation is conservative; I like that…

Except for the fact that Jon Huntsman — one of two Mormon presidential candidates — looks like a clone of nearly every Mormon man I have ever seen (even more so than Mitt Romney, the other Mormon), kind of an eerie “Boys from Salt Lake City” thing, he could be the kind of conservative I could like.

I say that only because I just read a story in which he was quoted as asserting that conservation is part of being conservative. It seems that most modern conservatives eschew worries over climate change and the environment and even the idea of conservation (of the earth’s resources) itself.

To be fair, I think the idea of many conservatives is that although conservation and the environment are of course important, some people (they would say “liberals”) use the issue as a device to promote social programs and restrictions on individual liberty.

And the integrity of various climate change studies and the methodologies of them have come into question lately, with indications that some of their evidence was faked.

On the other hand, the yahoos I seem to hear all the time just spout ignorance and parrot what idiots such as Rush Limburger Cheese spout each day (and he does it just to make money, not that he necessarily believes what he says — at least that is the way I see it). Unfortunately, there is a lot of money to be made in promoting ignorance it seems.

And now comes Huntsman saying that the whole debate over climate change should be based on science instead of politics. Amen to that brother.

The fact that he has the guts to say this, knowing that it does not do anything to win votes among what is seen as the Republican base, and he is a Republican, makes me think that he might be sincere, if not politically savvy. Then again, a conservative who could draw in moderate (and even some liberal) voters might just stand a good chance of winning.

(He made his remarks at a meeting of Republicans for Environmental Protection. Sounds dubious, but then again Richard Nixon, a Republican, was the one who created the EPA — go figure.)

And this paragraph is kind of out of place here, but this is a blog — even liberals know that if the country goes broke all their social programs a schemes go down the drain.

But I doubt I would like much of what Huntsman stands for other than what I have just noted — don’t know much about him yet, though.

Like I always say: I almost could be a Republican at times if they (Republicans) would give me a reason to be one.

A link to the story I mentioned:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/jon-huntsman-climate-change_n_912884.html

God or Mother Nature makes a statement down south; are we jealous we don‘t have royalty?

BLOGGER’S NOTE: I’m going to try to use larger type for these posts in the future — but for now, maybe just up the type size on your own screen.

——–

Say it’s God or say it is Mother Nature, but natural forces have shown who’s boss in the Southern U.S.

As I look out at the beautiful view from my apartment, the greenery of the riparian jungle, with a full stomach, and in quiet tranquility, I think about the images of devastation and the anguish on the faces of some of those in Alabama and elsewhere in the South who were (are) victims of one of the worst onslaughts of multiple and incredibly strong tornadoes in history, with 300 or more dead and whole towns virtually destroyed. These images I saw on my computer thanks to the NBC Nightly News. I’ve been on the road all week and barely saw any of it until now. NBC did a good job of reporting, I thought.

The landscape looked like an atomic bomb had blown through.

Certainly the federal government can and should do everything in its power to help in the rescue effort and restore life as best it can down there. From all reports, the people, as a whole, are survivors, quite capable of doing for themselves with what they have. But they are follow citizens who deserve all the help possible.

This is where the National Guard and even the Army and other services need to be, and to an extent are, as far as I know. Just tried to glean more about that off the web. All I found is that National Guard troops were backing up overwhelmed local police chasing down looters. Looters should be shot on sight, I would say (but of course then there could be mistakes — but how low can one get?).

But it is far more important to look inward and help ourselves than it is to try to remake the rest of the world.

Already there has been speculation that global warming or man-induced climate change may have contributed to the unusual number and size of the tornadoes. This is something we need to know about, but I am afraid that it all will just get caught up in the political fight over what should be a scientific question.

While I have always realized that so-called conservatives balk at environmental concerns because they don’t want to be bothered by what they see as hindrances to their profits and that they prefer to worship at the altar in the shape of the almighty dollar, rather than protect what God gave them, I now have heard another explanation:

A caller to a talk show said that socialists want to use so-called environmental concerns as leverage to get government to force people into socialistic practices.

But I would prefer to judge things by real science, not political science.

Real science may or may not go against capitalistic practices, but it will weed out environmental extremism, if you can divorce science from politics.

I’ve noticed that the need to make money — and the need is real of course — always seems to put people at a conflict with nature. An example: after the Gulf oil gusher disaster, people whose livelihoods depend upon the oil industry could not wait to get back to drilling in the deep water, while those whose livelihoods depend upon the natural fishery of the Gulf needed things to be cleaned up and possibly tighter regulations on drilling. And you cannot eat or drink oil. But then again, many can’t buy eats or drink without oil money.

We humans have a  natural habit of concentrating more on short-term gain than long-term sustainability (killing the goose that laid the golden egg and all).

Meanwhile, no matter what we do, we are at the mercy of God or Mother Nature, if you will.

—————-.

Also caught up on the Royal wedding. I had thought I was not interested. But it is nice to see tradition lives. And while the very next in line seems kind of a dud — sorry Charlie — his son Prince William would look good, kingly, on the throne, with his fine new wife, commoner, turn royal Kate Middleton at his side. Hopefully she will not be the wild distraction the royal family has recently suffered from on the female side — no real offense meant to these women. They just apparently were not cut out to go along with the often stodgy royal program.

I think many in the U.S. are a little jealous that the British have something to look up to. Our own so-called elite have let us down.

It is increasingly difficult to be a statesman in the atmosphere of modern American politics that seems more like a tawdry, vulgar circus than a sober discussion or debate on governmental policies.

Although the British royals have little to no political power, they give that nation a sense of dignity as representatives of the state, Great Britain, and its dominions.

I now understand why in the United States we have gone through periods of what has been called the Imperial Presidency — I think Ronald Reagan being the last actor (literally and figuratively at the same time) in that show.

I do recall that when Britain went to take back the Falklands from Argentina, many years ago now, then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went to the Queen to announce her intentions and get the monarch’s blessing.

And give it to the Brits: they had a successful little war down there. I say, good show!

Even if the science is good, or mostly good, fraud and bias muddy the waters in pollution and climate change debate…

The climate change deniers danced with glee awhile back when it was discovered that some researchers had presented false data in support of the thesis of climate change or global warming, as it is often referred to. And certainly if people present false research this is good ammunition for the opponents of the theory of climate change. (And when I refer to climate change and global warming I am also referring to the theory that such is caused or in large part caused by man’s activities, such as spewing pollutants into the atmosphere.)

It was suggested that even though the global warming theory may well be proven by science, some researchers in their exuberance to make the common people understand or to beat the competition for research grants padded their research a little. I have no idea. I’m not a scientist and I only know what the experts tell me, but my information comes through the filter of the media and I do not really know who are the real experts and who are the pretenders.

And this brings me to the point or a point that I wanted to get to when I began this post:

While the scandal of the false research into global warming got quite a bit of publicity not too long ago, another one here in California where I live (well, I’m not here in California right now, but…) did not seem to get so much play.

But after occasionally listening to the harangues of KGO radio’s Dr. Bill Wattenburg over the past year or so (well actually several years in all) and just now doing some quick and possibly not too reliable web research, I have gathered this:

California has its own Air Resources Board also known as CARB that makes the state’s air pollution regulations, while other states fall under only federal regulations — something about the CARB essentially being grandfathered in before certain federal pollution regulation laws were passed. The important point here is that in California CARB rules, and its standards are essentially more stringent than federal standards or more onerous.

But here’s the connection in all of this to the first part of this post where I mentioned that some climate change research was reportedly fraudulent:

California now has relatively new regulations for diesel engines that are requiring private industry or operators to make costly modifications. This is done in the name of cleaning up the air. But many of those or all of those who oppose these regulations contend that the required modifications, strangely enough, in some or all cases have the opposite effect. How could this be?

Well for one thing, the scientist or so-called scientist who took the lead in much of the research that supported the new regulations lied about or misrepresented his education. The fact that he lied, I think, is public record. And this came to light a couple of years ago or so. But at last report I had he still works for CARB. His name is Hien Tran.

My instant web research was not good in that most of what I came across were biased reports with their own agenda, such as one site that seeks to get rid of CARB and the CARB site itself, which is self-serving and not a bit objective. Such is usually the case with web research, but possibly you can get some hopefully non-biased background from Wikipedia. It does mention the resume-padding scientist Mr. Tran (take that Mr. Tran) toward the end of its entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board

Now I also understand that scientists and others who support the CARB regulations contend that the science behind them is not affected by any deception about education by the scientist or fake scientist in question. And actually, I think that could be true, except for the fact that when you have someone who has lied and he is an integral part of the research effort that has led to a conclusion and subsequent regulations, the credibility of everything is called into question. It would seem that at the least that person, the person who lied, should be fired immediately, and the research should be re-evaluated. Apparently that did not happen. And I don’t know why.

Those who oppose the very idea of having CARB, including Dr. Wattenburg, continuously point to the fact that CARB supported (they say mandated) the use of MTBE in the state’s gasoline for years until it was proven that MTBE was polluting ground water (Wattenburg claims that CARB was finally forced to admit its mistake, while the CARB website makes it seem as if it immediately corrected things once the science was in). Also, Wattenburg and others say that while CARB had contended that MTBE made gasoline burn more efficiently, it actually reduced the miles per gallon. That seems to be a contradiction in terms (by CARB, not Wattenburg), but what do we non-scientists really know?

(And then there is the ethanol controversy and the argument that enthanol in fuel — supported by CARB and others – is not more efficient and just serves the vested interests of corn growers and their industry and makes food cost more with food corn acreage being diverted to ethanol production, but I do not want to get into that here.)

Personally I am interested in clean air and a healthy environment and I do not think you decide how much clean air you can afford. You do or someone does have to figure out how to get there from here. But the decision should be based on honest science and practicalities, devoid of the influence of special or vested interests.

The special or vested interests involved in the whole environmental or climate change debate are many. Industry hires scientists to do research tailored to fit its needs (I would call this phony, biased research). And some under the banner of environmentalism do much the same because sometimes worthwhile causes become businesses or careers in themselves. Case in point, those who work for CARB pull down huge salaries — they want to keep the whole thing going.

The average citizen and even highly-educated citizens who are not scientists are at the mercy of those who are and the media filter.

Probably media outlets need more reporters who are scientists. But there are some problems with that. A scientist as a reporter would have to leave his or her own opinion behind and stick to the objective facts for the most part, and that is hard for someone knowledgeable in a field to do. Someone as intelligent as I suggest also would not likely be interested in being a reporter for the general republic and might well make more money elsewhere. Media outlets probably do not want to hire high-priced scientists, although broadcast media does pay millions to celebrity news presenters, many of whom have limited knowledge of anything except blow dryers, wardrobe selection, and makeup. Real scientists are often not terribly good at writing or other types of communication (I don’t know why, really).

It is hard to know whom to believe in all of this, but just remember how long the cigarette companies denied any health risks with their product. And then we found out years later that their own research proved it but they covered it up and hired other phony research.

P.s.

Dr. Wattenburg often likes to say that all this noise over man causing climate change is a bunch of hooey, that the climate has been steadily changing all along, irrespective of man’s activities. I was just last night discussing with one of my brothers something we had read about Greenland to the effect that centuries ago there the Vikings were involved with agriculture and then the climate turned too cold. And now the climate there is getting warmer. The point being that the earth’s climate was changing well before the industrial revolution. I would think most thinking people have to realize that there are natural forces we cannot control but that our own activities have an effect too. It is not all one way or the other. Objectivity is the key here.

P.s. P.s.

A good businessman or salesman might be terribly un-objective or biased when trying to sell someone or the public as a whole on something for personal gain, but when making his own personal business decisions he would likely want all the facts from all sides to make an objective and prudent decisions.

Global warming or climate change should not be a political issue but a scientific one…

Is there global warming going on? And is it man-caused? And is there a danger we will go too far — or have already done so — to reverse the ill effects on climate?

The only answers to these questions are in science.

But they are usually presented in political or ideological terms and most all sides or shades in the political spectrum are guilty to some degree in using the subject to push their own agenda. Even some so-called scientists may be guilty in shading the evidence to make it fit at certain narration, because funding for research is often done at the behest of some entity that wants to promote a point of view, usually to support some perceived financial opportunity or often the maintenance of an existing economy. To put in bluntly, for instance, I’m in trucking and it is to the industry’s advantage (short term at least) to have science that would suggest all that diesel smoke has no detrimental effect on the environment.　

The news media is often blamed for inaccurately reporting the science on the subject. This charge may well be true for two main reasons. First of all, the media can only legitimately report what it is told. Second of all, most journalists are not scientists and if they were smart enough to be scientists they’d more than likely be working as such. And scientists probably would not make terribly good journalists for the most part — there are no doubt exceptions. And scientists who have a talent to communicate need to step up their efforts and be supported in doing so.

And of course there is not total agreement in the scientific community on nearly anything and the science would be suspect if there was — I mean man does not and probably can‘t ever know everything, so science itself is an inexact science.

But if our leaders in this nation really believed in education as they often claim to, no matter what their individual political persuasion, they would promote the study of science and government-supported un-biased research — although government support, in and of itself, does not guarantee lack of bias, as we found out during the George W. Bush administration.

Science and ideology do not mix.

I’m just guessing, just guessing mind you, that we probably are adding the greenhouse effect with carbon emissions from fossil fuels at a rate that will eventually do irreparable harm to our environment. That does not mean we have to, or even could, stop everything we are doing right now and/or go back to the Stone Age. What it does mean is that we have to take serious steps now to turn things around. To a degree we are. But we may need to move faster. And what we really need to do is promote a better and non-ideological based understanding of science among everyone, and particularly our young, who have a chance to do something about it.

What brought this to my mind was an article I just read about a new book by Professor David Archer called “Global Carbon Cycle”. And as I understand it, it suggests that there is still time to reverse what appears to be a trend that may lead to global warming that will cause disastrous climate change, but that time is running out.

And the reviewer says the book is quite readable for the layman. So maybe people should read it instead of spouting the latest lines from Rush Limburger Cheese or even Al “I-invented-the-internet” Gore.

I refer you to the article and book: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101210/sc_ac/7371018_the_real_science_of_global_warming;_ylt=AmsCRSc6N8MpBhTPfOGIrtis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTRlYm4zanVzBGFzc2V0A2FjLzIwMTAxMjEwLzczNzEwMThfdGhlX3JlYWxfc2NpZW5jZV9vZl9nbG9iYWxfd2FybWluZwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzgEcG9zAzUEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawN0aGVyZWFsc2NpZW4

And if there is other credible research out there that suggests really things are no different now than they ever have been and that nothing needs to be done, then we should consider that too, but let‘s see that research. We need to know what we need to know, not just what we only hoped that we needed to know.

We’re falling behind the world, we need math and science teachers and why do we distrust science anyway?

Just read a column by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times (see link at bottom of blog) about how climate change has become a four-letter word that many politicians who want to keep their public office are now afraid to utter.

It seems that the forces who put quick profits or continued profits by continuing as usual and who scoff at any environmental concerns (probably the same types that litter our earth with fast food wrappers and cigarette butts) have been so intimidating with their baseless rants against science and their threats against any politician who would heed scientific studies that the U.S. is falling behind China and European countries in the industry of new green technology.

Friedman says that while climate change has been turned into a four-letter word by many in the U.S., China has also turned it into a four-letter world, except in their case its J-O-B-S.

Of course some over-eager scientists who have fudged a little on their research have discredited the whole field to a degree and have certainly given a lot of ammunition to the know nothings who neither care nor understand anything of science and who are motivated by profit and the desire for their own immediate comfort and their need to demagogue the issue to gain power.

Now I’ll break away right here and say that I am not one to support immediate wholesale prohibitions of various activities in everyday life in the name of environmental concerns. There has to be reason and practicality in all of this.

For instance, I‘m all for recycling, but its needs to be made relatively easy, and of course it is always helpful, but perhaps not always necessary, to have some monetary incentive. I see a lot of folks collecting cans. But I am not going to spend my days sorting out trash, but I do put easily identifiable recycle material in the blue bins where I live.

Also, last night I drove through some pungent but not at all unpleasant fireplace smoke that had wafted across the freeway, signaling the approach of fall and winter. In some places that activity is already banned. To lose that would be a shame.

Environmental restrictions should be debated, but science cannot be ignored forever.

The recent massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill was an interesting case. First we were told there was no problem. Then we were told there was a big problem. Then we were told that a large percentage of the Gulf was contaminated with thick crude oil and there seemed no way to get rid of it. Then we were told that scientists had discovered that naturally occurring micro-organisms were eating much of it up. Well that certainly had to be good ammunition for those who would say just continue business as usual –see? What was all that fuss about pollution? It seemed for a time that much of the spilled oil had disappeared. But scientists have now discovered thick globs of it on the ocean floor, surprise surprise, not really.

As to climate change that most scientific observers seem to attribute in large part to man’s activities, some, including some seemingly learned observers, such as Dr. Bill Wattenburg of KGO Radio fame in San Francisco, blithely wave it off by saying there is no real scientific proof that climate change is anything but a continuation of natural processes that have been going on since time immemorial (with man-made activity only affecting it ever so slightly, maybe).

Whatever the case, I think it would be helpful if more of us were scientifically literate so that we could interpret more of what is happening for ourselves.

For some reason science is given short shrift in our education system. Under the requirements of the time (graduating from high school in 1967 in California) I could have attained a four-year degree without taking any math or science. There are some requirements along those lines these days for college, but the real problem may be in the lower grades anyway.

Ever since I can recall there has been a shortage of math and science teachers. One reason might be that many people skilled in those subjects find better paying and more desirable working conditions elsewhere.

I for one think that the best math and science teachers might well come out of career fields other than education. Sometimes people who have retired from another field then go into teaching. They might be able to afford a somewhat lower rate of pay what with their retirement benefits. That’s a plus for them — something to add to their retirement — and it is a plus for the students because teachers like that might better be able to offer real-world practical applications to the subjects that make them more meaningful.

The idea of a teacher coming from another career than education could work in all subjects, not just math and science. An English teacher who had written or edited for a quality publication might be an example of someone who could offer something extra to students.

I do not suggest that all teachers have to come from other fields beyond education and I certainly do not suggest that teacher pay can be held down because some may be entering education as a second career after retirement from another.

In fact, there could be a danger in replacing the whole education establishment with real world actors. Someone has to keep up the standards and there needs to be a certain body of people who are not subject to the shortcut thinking of the practical everyday world.

But I do think we as a nation need to invest more in education, particularly math and science, since that seems to be our weak spot, even though somewhat ironically we still lead the world in much scientific research ( I think we do, anyway). But of course a lot of foreigners come here to work and study.

———————————–

ADD 1:

And this via the Daily Kos blog, which picked it up from the LA Times (and I’m paraphrasing) – While United States researchers have developed one major breakthrough after another over the past decades, such as flat screen TVs, robotics, and lithium batteries, much of the economic benefit, to include jobs, from those developments has been shipped overseas.

And from my own point of view, some multinational or supposedly American corporations which benefit from the location and amenities and protections of the United States have no real allegiance to the United States.

———————————————- 

But that investment needs to go to the classrooms not the administrative offices. Yes of course we need administrators, but we have a tendency to overdo it in that regard. One reason we are top heavy in administration is that becoming a principal or vice principal or superintendent or a dean is often the only path to promotion and higher wages. There ought to be some way for teachers with demonstrable knowledge and talent to, putting it bluntly, make more money.

And how do you determine who is a good teacher meriting merit pay? Good question. While I think students’ performance obviously has to play a large part in that determination, I think demonstrable talent and knowledge, mastery if your will,  in subject matter by the teacher has to be given at least equal, if not more, weight. Teachers should not be required to be cheerleaders whipping up learning enthusiasm for their students, even though an ability in that regard is certainly welcome. Simply put, students who want to learn should be able to learn from a teacher who has knowledge as long as the teacher does his or her part to share that knowledge. A teacher who has unmotivated or perhaps simply weak-minded students should not be held accountable for their lacking.

We could simply continue business as usual. We also can fall behind the rest of the world. While I think that it is in our own best interests as a nation to lead, there is no law that says that has to be the case. It’s really up to us. But we are falling behind.

P.s.

And you should read Friedman’s column if you have not already: http://www.NYTimes.com/2010/09/19/opinion/19friedman.html?-r=1@src=r@ref=homepage