Environmentalists need to help us reduce demand for fossil fuels. Restricting supply can raise fuel prices and just lead to right wing populism.

I've heard of supply side economics as well as demand side economics. I got to thinking, is there supply and demand side environmentalism? Yes. I looked up on Google.

I believe that the emphasis on supply side environmentalism has been a mistake, for the most part. That is trying to reduce climate change by restricting oil drilling, for instance, thus restricting supply. It leads to populist rebellion against higher fuel prices.

Demand side environmentalism works better. Trying to figure out how to reduce the need for fossil fuels in people's lives and in the economy. Public transit, for instance. Encouraging residential and business use of rooftop solar energy, for instance. Heat pumps, electrification, lifestyles and cultures of less consumption and so forth are dealing with the demand side.

Taxes on supply, such as carbon taxes or Washington State's Cap and Trade rules are demand side restrictions as well. I tend to support these, but things on the demand side do run the risk of political pushback.

In our liberal state (Washington) our cap and trade law did survive a repeal attempt in 2024 in spite of people complaining about this state's higher gas prices than in other states.

I'm glad that law survived. Washington tends to be a more liberal state than most. Still, it seems like working on the demand side is a safer way to go. Restricting supply, while people are still dependent on a product, is politically dangerous.

The law of unintended consequences and populism.

Looks like the current regime of Trump, voted in by populist and tax cut sentiment, continues to benefit the wealthy. This Christmas shopping season is mostly fueled by the top. The wealthy and billionaires are the main beneficiaries of current policy. The stock market goes up as well. Most stock owned by the wealthy.

As the political pendulum swings, the Trump regime is loosing popularity. Popular opinion does tend to flounder back and forth, but it is changing again.

Among Democrats, far left is only electable in certain regions. Moderates in other regions. They need to work together to have a majority.

Unfortunately, I doubt the majority of people, in this country, would support candidates considered to the far left. The left has traction in cities like New York and Seattle. Maybe even in Bellingham. Not across much of rural USA.

I think a "big tent strategy" is needed for the Democratic Party. One size fits all doesn't work and just leads to internal strife in any party. Different regions should support and elect who their voters wish. A diversity of opinions and strategies should be able to function and find at least some measure of consensus upon civil discussion.

Power to the people also means to the people who think in a great diversity of ways.

Ethiopia can forge ahead with electric cars. Without much worry about Chinese electric car imports harming a domestic auto industry.

Since 2024, Ethiopia, a third world country in Africa, has banned import of gas and diesel burning cars in favor of electric cars. Lots of electric cars are available from China and a few other places. The first country to take such a step. Good news.

I feel that the US auto industry is more of an impediment to electrification than the oil industry. Fear of inexpensive car imports, from China, creating huge auto industry layoffs drives US policy against importing less expensive electric cars from abroad. Ethiopia doesn't have much domestic auto industry to worry about.

I would guess that the US oil industry is less threatened, these days, by cheap imported oil as US oil is similar, in domestic price, to imported oil.

Still, the oil industry may be threatened as well by electrification, so I wouldn't necessarily let them off the hook either.

There are a lot of relatively high paying jobs at stake in any transition. Transition can also bring prosperity in new ways, however. We just have to be willing to except change.

Ethiopia is willing to take the gamble for electrification in spite of reliability problems with the power grid there.

Still, the power supply is improving in Ethiopia, due to the new Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. From what I read, Ethiopia gets 97% of it's electricity from hydropower, though there are problems with distribution, having enough charging stations and so forth. Home solar panels can help also.

The electric cars work better in urban areas where there are more charging stations.

I would guess electric bikes are used also. The US does have lots of electric bikes in use; possibly seen as less of a threat to US auto industry than inexpensive Chinese electric cars.

Even old fashioned gasoline can be difficult to get in Ethiopia with long lines at petrol stations. The country imports oil.

Article in Sept. 12 2025 The Guardian. Powering up: how Ethiopia is becoming an unlikely leader in the electric vehicle revolution.

Standing by US supporters in adversarial nations does have it's risks though it may still be the right thing to do.

In the news, I read that the suspect who shot at National Guard troops in Washington DC was from Afghanistan. Someone who had been involved with CIA helping US troops during that war. Allowed to immigrate to US after the war as part of US efforts not to turn our backs on those who have helped us overseas.

During that war, I remember the term "green on blue violence." That was when a few Afghans that were cooperating with US forces turned on the US solders. War is a dirty and messy thing.

I also read that the suspect has lived in Bellingham, which doesn't really matter, except that since I live in Bellingham, that puts a local twist and spotlight on this item of national news.

In another universe, Bellingham's central waterfront could have gotten a boost from WWU's housing needs.

Hindsight is better than foresight. I got to thinking maybe they should have built more housing for WWU students in the central waterfront district where Georgia Pacific used to be. WWU doesn't have much room for new dorms so several big student focused apartment complexes were recently built in Bellingham. One of the large complexes is Stateside while the other has a new name called The Wilder. See below.

Passing by large Stateside Apartment Complex between State Street and Bellingham's South Bay Trail.

An early waterfront plan called for WWU to relocate it's Environmental Sciences College at the new waterfront and even connect it to main campus with a gondola. I think the gondola plan ended, in part, due to NIMBY neighbors under it's proposed path.

Meanwhile the Environmental Sciences plan fell though around the 2009 economic crash and some state budget cuts. Since then, those two new housing projects were built on both State and Garden Streets.

Maybe they are better where they are now as they are closer to WWU than the waterfront district, but I tend to brainstorm about stuff like this. They could have provided more things for developing the waterfront area; especially if the gondola was there. Dream on.

Popular opinion still might matter, especially when it's more than just a razer thin margin.

I think Trump is more of a populist than a true Republican conservative. In his past, he was even a Democrat for a while. Recently he has come out in favor of extending Affordable Care Act Subsidies; a popular position.

Meanwhile mainstream Republicans are warning him that it would cost too much and add to the deficit. See link in comments. I think popular opinion still matters and can even steer this president.

Are we living within our means on this limited planet given the technologies we are using.

An important question is, "are we living within our means on this limited planet given the technologies we are using."

If we wanted to have lifestyles of flying across the Atlantic in minutes on suborbital spaceplanes, we could if energy came from clean sources and the technology wasn't damaging the planet.

On the other hand, if we hadn't ever invented the transistor, so we were still relying on vacuum tubes for electronics, we couldn't be using smartphones today. We don't have to go back to the past, but we do have to live within our means, given the technologies that we are using. Hydrogen fusion might be a solution, but it's still not available. Meanwhile we have things like solar power and nuclear fission. Even with utopian energy sources, however, there are other constraints to our lifestyles, such as if all 8 billion+ people drive cars, can they all find parking?

Poster I saved from trash now historic memory for WWU.

A replica of a poster I saved from my college days is now framed on the wall of a student lounge at WWU. Its in the corner of a small lounge in the LGBTQ+ space at Viking Union.

Someone else did the poster art, back in 1975 for a dance called A Gala Ball. Posters are normally thought of as temporary, but I kept a bunch of the posters, from back then, that are now part of a collection at WWU's Center For Pacific Northwest Studies. A few posters, I even got out of wastebaskets.

As was at that dance soon after I turned 20. It was held in the cafeteria of Fairhaven Dorms on campus.

The reverse side of the original poster has a bunch of colored lines as, I think, back in the 1980s, I used it to test a bunch of pens to see if they'd still write. I was going through a box of old pens. Fortunately, I didn't damage the front side of that poster.

Drilling off Florida Gulf Coast.

The vote in Florida went for Trump in 2024. Now he's paying them back by opening up oil drilling off the Florida Gulf coast though even many Florida Republicans worry about potential damage to the tourism industry on the coast.

Olympic pipeline leak could effect SeaTac travel and other fossil fuel dependent things in Pacific Northwest.

Olympic Pipeline, which fuels much of the Pacific Northwest has been shut down temporarily due to a leak discovered near Everett. This affects jet fuel delivery to SeaTac Airport as Thanksgiving "travel madness" looms in the near future. Workarounds, such as fuel delivery by truck, are being put in place. Our governor has declared a state of emergency to deal with this situation.

The pipeline also delivers most of the oil and gasoline used in the Northwest. It brings refined products, from the two oil refineries north of Bellingham and the two refineries near Anacortes, to consumers farther south. It goes from Whatcom County to Seattle and then on to Portland, Oregon serving a large population along the way.

From what I have gathered, in past years, some of the fuel used in Eastern Washington comes through Olympic as well as fuel travels by barge up the Columbia River from Portland to Tri Cities and then by truck to various distribution points from there.

In 1999, a leak in Bellingham caused a major fire along Whatcom Creek which killed three people. Great care must be taken in handling fossil fuels. I would guess that this 2025 leak was caught quite early.

Population size is an elephant in the COP30 room. Maybe a reason why India is reluctant to update its goals, though it's doing a lot to transition to cleaner energy.

On radio, I heard that India is refusing to update its goals for limiting carbon emissions. It's delegation responds by saying that India has done a lot in transitioning to solar and other alternative sources of energy. Still, India does burn lots of coal. I see the big problem as being population. India is now the most populated country in the world, surpassing even China. As India and other countries seek to bring people out of poverty, they use many sources of energy.

From what I hear the top 3 sources of carbon emissions in the world today, are China, USA and India with India being in third place. Each of these three nations have been attempting to transition to cleaner energy. China has now set some goals, but just setting goals isn't necessarily that effective. Just about every nation has broken the goals they have set at past climate summits.

Under Donald Trump, the official policy of the US government is now to tear up the goals, to consider climate change to be a hoax and to refuse to send a high level delegation to the climate talks in Belem Brasil. At the same time, various states and local centers of power, in the US, have sent people to the climate convention; for instance Governor Newsom arriving from California.

Whether setting goals and signing agreements makes a difference, or not, is a good question. Few countries have been able to meet their own commitments. It's possible that these conferences are just an exercise in futility and a waste of jet fuel for bringing delegates together. Still, they may serve a purpose as the leaders discuss climate change.

Population is not talked about enough. India is now on top of the world chart in size of its population. The size of our world's population is a big factor as so much of the world has been rising out of poverty, learning to drive cars and so forth, since my college days in the 1970s.

About Epstein Files, Trump's previous attempts to coverup the files might be worse than the alleged crimes. Remember Nixon and Watergate.

It was said about President Nixon, during the Watergate Scandal, and even President Clinton as the US House was voting on impeachment proceedings, that the coverup and lying was worse than the alleged crimes.

This could also be the case with President Trump's ties with Jeffry Epstein. Attempts to block release of the Epstein Files has, if nothing else, fractured Trump's base. Good news for Democrats as Trump's base quarrels among itself, similar to what Democrats do.

Internal strife, within both political camps, is nothing new, but things like the Epstein Files heighten the realization that political blocks are not necessarily as solid as they appear.

Now that Trump, like a loose cannon, has switched sides on this issue and come out in favor of releasing the Epstein Files, we'll see what happens next.

Seattle's new mayor elect Katie Wilson lives a car free lifestyle. Very good. Also my thinking on the economics that may not favor government run grocery stores.

Seattle's mayor elect Katie Wilson is said to not own a car as she uses public transit and bicycling for transportation. That sounds like me. It's also said that she and her small family live in a one bedroom apartment. It's good to have role models for lower footprint lifestyles.

Some folks are critical of her ideas; like government owned grocery stores. Yes, some of those ideas might have drawbacks. I've done some Google research to learn a bit more. It does seem like private industry does a good job with grocery stores. Profit margins, in large discount stores, tend to be thin. Lower prices usually come from big chains; the benefits from "economy of scale." Giants like Costco and Winco come to mind.

Yes, there are food deserts in certain neighborhoods and other problems with the fairness of food. Again, I can blame the automobile for some of these problems. Here in Bellingham, I've noticed most of the big grocers are near I-5 with acres of parking; not in denser residential areas where people can easily walk to the store from home.

In some cases, government can help by investing in neighborhood developments. Government can be a landlord attempting to lure a grocery store into an area. There are also alternatives to privately owned stores run for private profit motive. Winco is employee owned. Bellingham has two branches of the Community Food Coop which is a community coop. Some of it's prices are more expensive than the large box stores, but I still find it reasonable enough.

I often shop at the Coop as it's one of the only stores in the downtown area that's easy to get to by bike. Our downtown is becoming more dense with housing, so lots of people live nearby.

Since I'm single and don't cook much, I often eat at the Coop's instore deli. It also serves as a social outlet as many of my friends can be found there, on occasion. That's my lifestyle.

I sometimes call a local radio talk show with perspectives from my lifestyle. While the host of the show is fairly liberal, some of the callers skew more to the right. I remember one caller describing me as that bicyclist who seldom needs to stop for a breath (long winded?) who also likes living in a shoebox. Yes, my small apartment.

Vaccine research in mRNA vaccines offers potential for treatment of cancer, but anti mRNA sentiment in USA may impede progress.

New research has found an unanticipated result of these vaccines: Cancer treatments are more effective for some vaccinated patients, and many live longer than their unvaccinated counterparts. This news comes at a time where the federal government is slashing funding for mRNA research. More advances cancer research and treatment may come from other countries. A link to segment of NPR Science Friday.

Going to war for the Christians while starving the people.

A recent editorial in New York Times discusses Trump's possible plan to use military force in Nigeria for protecting Christians from attacks in religious fighting. Muslims are attacking Christians, but Christians are also attacking Muslims. The editorial says that far more Nigerians are dying from Trump and Republican cuts to USAID; than in the rivalry. Also USAID costs less than another military intervention.

It is also said that some of the rivalry, in Nigeria, relates to Muslim Fulani herders who have conflicts with settled Christian farmers. Makes me think of the old tune from the movie Oklahoma about how the farmer and the cowman should be friends. In my own thinking, not found in the editorial, is the issue of population growth. Nigeria's population is among the fastest growing of world nations. Nigeria has far less land than USA so conflict over land use is likely. We even have that here.

I also think about the US churches, such as a branch of the Anglican Church, that has broken away from the western Anglican church due to the western church being more accepting of gay people. Religious prejudice against alternative lifestyles that are less apt to engage in procreation is one of the things that causes more death and suffering around the world.

Some aspects of US economic expectations are unsustainable. Cost of living hard to solve. Now Republican incumbents will face voter disappointment.

Making life more affordable for the majority of Americans is a difficult task. With Republicans in power at the national level, they are likely to face blame from the public. This could be good news for Democrats at the pendulum swings.

Solving this problem is difficult for pretty much any politician. There are many reasons why affordability is hard to achieve including growing wealth and income inequality throughout the entire population. Climate change brings it's own costs, such as rising insurance rates due to fires, flooding and so forth. Addressing climate change brings its inconveniences as fossil fuel has been a convenient way to power current lifestyles, business practices and technologies.

Another problem is that the things making life less affordable for some people will benefit others. For instance, high home values benefit long term homeowners who no longer owe the mortgage, but they make life less affordable for renters and first time homebuyers. High salaries in various fields of employment such as healthcare, education and administration can make those services less affordable.

Big changes in the way we function as a society are needed. Money and the rising GDP is too important to our way of thinking. How much of the GDP is just inflation versus an actual increase in the quality of the goods and services we have?

Other values, such as community, health, friends joy and the perception of satisfaction are more important goals for me than just things measured in money.

One benefit of reopening the government is progress moving forward toward more transparency about the Epstein files.

Now that the government has reopened and Arizona Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva has been sworn in, more of the information about possible connections between Trump and Epstein is starting to become available. More transparency can be a good thing. A benefit of reopening the government.

Instead of bombing from the air couldn't there be ways to detain suspected drug dealing boats in the Caribbean Sea?

With so much money that the US spends on it's military, one would think they could have enough ships and boats to create blockades around suspected drug dealing boats in the Caribbean Sea.

Rather than just bombing the boats from the air, couldn't they surround the boats, board and search for drugs and possibly detain the crew if drugs were found?

If the US boats were fired on couldn't we fire back from the sea? I know, boarding the boats could be dangerous. Maybe drones could be sent to inspect the boats for suspicious things. One thinks there could be a better strategy than just bombing them from the air.

Lower birthrates no problem for talent supply. There's still an oversupply of talented folks seeking immigration to the better countries.

Some people worry that declining birthrates means not enough young people to fill jobs, grow the economy and pay for people's retirements. I don't see this as a problem since there is an oversupply of talented refugees seeking immigration to safer places all over the world. There are more than enough refugees to keep the economies running in the countries that folks wish to escape to. It's filling up the housing and infrastructures, in the nicer parts of the world.

Was the shutdown a good tactic for the Democrats?

Until the Democrats gain a majority in at least one house of Congress, there isn't much they can do; except make noise or "good trouble;" a quote from former Congressman John Lewis. The shutdown has brought attention to the health insurance issue, but it went as far as it could go before causing more bad trouble than it's worth.

Now the rising premiums will be a wakeup call as well.

Be willing to accept the tradeoffs that taxing the wealthy brings down to the middle class consumer.

Raising taxes on wealthy people is often a good idea, but lots of people fear that it will slow the economy. To be totally honest, it can slow the economy and hurt business.

On the other hand, adequately funding things like infrastructure, education and research can bring long term benefits to the economy. It's a case of short term pain for long term gain. This could be better explained and better understood by the public.

Some things, people value, might become less well financed; like pro sports and big budget movies. Another example is more expensive gasoline as taxes on oil producers get passed on to consumers. In exchange for this, we can get things like more public transit.

We can't "have it all." Lots of things, in life, are tradeoffs.

Even if the economy changes, other qualities of life can still improve. What we value and aspire toward can change.

Now that government reopens, Republicans will still have to face voter angst over rising insurance premiums.

Allowing the government shutdown to end is probably a good strategy for the Democrats though some feel the Democrats have capitulated. If the Republicans can't fix the problem of rising health insurance premiums the Republicans are likely to loose popularity heading into next year's midterm elections. If Democrats can retake a majority in at least one house of Congress that will make a difference in the power struggle at the top.

I do feel for the folks who have trouble affording healthcare premiums. I remember worrying about not having any health insurance during many years before the ACA (Affordable Care Act) even existed. Lots of employers don't provide health insurance. Fortunately my health got me through those years. Not everyone is that fortunate.

Still, I do tend to blame people for our problems. I also tend to blame the Republican Party, these days.

The Democrats aren't perfect either, but the voters, themselves, seem to be pretty fickle. Polls can swing back and forth as people don't seem to know what to do about the rising cost of living. Sometimes they just fall for celebrities, like Donald Trump, out of plain frustration, I guess. People lash out without much in the way of a rational game plan.

As problems get more obvious, the vote might swing back toward more progressive ideals. I often blame the masses, but I also feel like the masses can have the power, if they vote and live responsibly.

The Democrats do have a popular issue on their side; the rising cost of health insurance. Sometimes the people do need a wakeup call. If the shutdown had continued for several more weeks; another wakeup call would be taking place; a crippled Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday travel season due to air travel cutbacks.

I tend to think that much of mainstream American lifestyle is unsustainable, but people do keep propping it up. Millions of folks, taking jet planes across thousands of miles for just an extended weekend is a stretch, even in good times.

I may seem a bit smug in my unusual lifestyle choices; such as having no travel plans for either Christmas or Thanksgiving. My holiday plans are local.

Still, now that it looks like the government is reopening, at least the Democrats have dodged the bullet of blame that likely could have come their way from a ruined holiday season for voters.

Hope the momentum for Democrats continues into the 2026 midterm elections. Public opinion can be fickle.

Democratic victories across the country, in this last election, are said to be propelled by concern over the rising cost of living. Deep structural problems in our economy are making life less affordable for the majority of people and there may not be much politicians can do to resolve this.

Still, I'd rather see the Democrats gain ground versus the one party authoritarian rule of Republicans.

A fear is that populism quickly turns against politicians who promise to solve the problems, but can't deliver. This could swing populism back to the right by next year, but I think the Democratic momentum may still be safe a year from now during the midterms as Republicans are still the incumbents in national government. They still hold national power with iron fists. They will still be subject to blame as the economy continues to be problematic.

The Supreme Court is giving the president too much power.

The Supreme Court seems to be allowing Trump to do whatever he wants by executive order. Lower courts try to block his orders, but the court at the top is likely to overturn lower court rulings and hand power back to Trump. This may be one of the worst threats to democracy that we face these days. Hopefully the people can weigh in against most of Trump's rule. People still can have power at the polls, in the marketplace, at the local levels, and in day to day life.

Trump was able to appoint 3 justices to the high court during his first term. It's water under the bridge now, but if Hillary Clinton had gotten just a few more votes, in 2016, the makeup of the Supreme Court would have been a lot different. She did win the popular vote, that year, but the margins were so close that she didn't quite make it due to the Electoral College The Electoral College is another relic of our system which, ideally, shouldn't be there.

Glad to see the Democrats gained ground in many parts of the country during yesterdays election.

It's better than things eroding toward a one party system. I see the Democrats as protecting democracy.

Has the left lost, or can there be a new beginning for the left? Still thinking about consequences from 2024 election almost a year ago.

It seems like much of the traditional left has lost the political debate, but the future isn't necessarily all right wing as things do keep changing. The future is hard to predict, but things keep moving on to new configurations.

Traditional left tended to blame leaders of private sector and government for things like climate change and inequality. At the same time much of the left still followed the cultural patterns of consumerism at the grassroots level. Much of the American Dream, as it's been defined in the past, is no longer viable. New definitions of the dream are needed. Organizations such as Strong Towns (I find on Facebook) offer some new directions that make sense to me.

Addressing climate change seems to contradict the old style American Dream in such things as over dependence on the automobile. Also other aspects of consumerism.

The desire for more income and wealth equity tends to counter people's fixation with celebrities; such as following wealthy entertainers and sports figures. People complain about the wealthy, but then follow the wealthy in sports, movies and so forth. The masses are often manipulated by the wealthy.

Consumerism tends to favor economy of scale which supports large corporations, like Walmart, that can offer consumers low prices yet it also brings concentration of power. Less economy of scale can mean higher prices and less selection, but it might be worth it for other reasons. Reasons such as knowing the owners as neighbors and participants in the community versus absentee landlords across the country or around the world.

Wealth inequality is exacerbated by things like the wealth gap between home ownership and renting.

Wealth inequality is also exacerbated by rising salaries toward the top of professions. This beyond just the 1%, maybe the top 25% is making life harder for the bottom precentiles. High salaries based on bidding wars between organizations for attracting to talent to higher level positions. Executive salaries at KCTS Channel 9 Seattle and many other non profits, private corporations and government agencies are examples. High executive salaries makes running those organizations less viable.

As we keep finding out, populism doesn't always lean toward the left. The idea of the 1% versus the 99% is not a slam dunk winner of elections though it seems like it would be from just looking at those numbers alone.

Populism often leans right as things are more complicated than that. Folks who are still struggling to bring back the old definition of the American Dream, often understand it's pillars of support in our mostly capitalist system. They realize that just taxing business and the super rich will still have consequences felt clear down the food chain; slower economy, lost jobs, higher prices. Taxing business does have consequences for consumers and workers at the grassroots level. We can't "have it all."

Some of the consequences from taxes and regulation are worthy, however. This could be better explained to the American people; for instance higher gas prices, from taxes can help to bring better infrastructure. In the long run, maybe more prosperity, but it's a bit much to expect no short term sacrifice.

Lots of changes need to come to our entire culture from the grassroots level on up. I think these changes can happen as the future tends to always bring new things.

A consequence of cutting red tape and not wanting public input to get in the way of the bulldozers.

I'm more worried about the gerrymandering in various states to rig the 2026 election toward the Republicans than I am about the destruction of the White House's East Wing. I've never heard of the East Wing till now. Many Republicans do seem to want to bulldoze their way to the plan of Project 2025. Partially a reaction against red tape, regulation and public input. It's a mindset that says, "just get it done." Life is usually a tradeoff.

Pinning the blame for who? The shutdown, the debt and the cutbacks. Wishing for the spirit of Simpson Bowles Act.

It seems like the only leverage that the Democrats have, or at least think they have, in the national government is to shut down the government using filibuster rules in the Senate.

Aside from lower court judges that often get overturned by the Republican Supreme Court, Republicans basically run the national government.

I don't know if agreeing to reopen the government is a good strategy, or not, but if the government reopens, the Democrats may have lots of voters on their side. This due to rising cost of health insurance which will likely be blamed on the Republicans because of subsidy cuts to the Affordable Care Act that many Republicans want.

Budget restraint is usually as unpopular as taxes are among voters. Incumbents tend to become unpopular and the Republicans can easily be seen as owning the economy. Unemployment is likely going up while inflation continues.

Another headwind; insurance rates, for homes and businesses is going up, partially due to climate change bringing high waters to some areas and drought, with it's fires, to other areas. This all could lead to populism swinging back toward the Democrats, but now many people fear that Republicans will try to end democracy altogether to maintain their grip on power.

In 2010, during my work as a custodian, I remember having chats with my modest and thoughtful boss about something called the Simpson Bowles Act to try and reduce the federal debt.

Modest surroundings from behind the scenes where I worked as a custodian.

Sitting behind his hand-me-down desk in his spartan, basement office, he would say he liked divided government. Neither party should have too much power. Compromise can be a good thing. Simpson Bowles never passed, but it was an attempt to compromise.

In earlier years, both Democrats and Republicans were able to compromise on measures that kept Social Security solvent with a combination of modest tax increases and spending discipline. Today, it seems like giving an inch toward any compromise is feared.

A more accurate yardstick for measuring the distance to stars in our galaxy.

Launched by European Space Agency, the GAIA spacecraft used triangulation, like a surveyor's scope, to measure the distance to stars; a technique called "Stellar Parallax." It had a very successful 10 1/2 year run till the fuel for positioning it ran out.

I first learned about Stellar Parallax in freshman astronomy classes.

Stars are so far that distances can't be measured easily. Using the entire earth as a baseline between two telescopes, one can measure out to just a few stars.

Even using the entire earth's orbit, from one side of the sun to the other, will only measures out a bit farther.

Our solar system is orbiting the galaxy, so that creates an even longer baseline.

Gaia operated for slightly over 10 years so our solar system has traveled far as it orbits around the center of our galaxy. That, combined with ever more accurate measuring technology, allows us to measure the distance to many more stars.

This provides better data points for extrapolating the size of things in the universe such as galaxies. It also tells us more about stars, how bright they are and so forth, now that we have more accurate ways of measuring the distance to them.

In the past, most of our distance estimates were extrapolations using other techniques, such as "standard candle brightness," extrapolated from the smaller data set of more accurate parallax measurements.

Ya, I'm probably getting into the weeds now, over people's heads on the technical.

I think I understand it, for the most part, myself. My college astronomy classes continue to come to life as improved technologies enhance the research being done.

Decades ago, I had a fantasy about sending a space probe way out beyond the solar system to create a long baseline back to earth for measuring parallax. Turns out that might not be necessary since our travel, through the galaxy, is creating that baseline, over the years, anyway. No need to send out that spacecraft, Earth, itself, is doing the travelling.

In our orbit around the galaxy, the earth and solar system is traveling at 514,000 miles per hour.

Meanwhile, the Voyager 1 spacecraft, heading out from the solar system, is only traveling at 38,000 miles per hour. Voyager 1 doesn't measure parallax to stars anyway. It does other things.

Our solar system, itself, is traveling so fast around the galaxy that if something on earth was going that fast, it would be going around 142 miles per second, yet it still takes around 230 million years to complete 1 orbit around the galaxy.

Imagine how big the galaxy is.

Voyager 1 travels approximately 10 miles per second. It was launched clear back in 1977 and is just about to reach the "one light day" distance from us.

These calculations, I got from AI and using my hand held calculator.

Now you may have forgotten what I was starting to write about.

One point should not make or break everything, unless it is a winner take all situation.

One reason why I tend to avoid competitive sports is the winner take all situation. The Seattle Mariners lost their bid to the World Series by 1 point.

1 trivial, measly point can make, or break the outcome. Those who follow the Mariners had, at least, a good season.

Now, I wish national politics could go back to being less of a winner take all situation.

A sports cliffhanger is a source of anxiety that I can avoid.

Whether Seattle Mariners win today and make it to the World Series is a nailbiter.

I tend to not follow sports so it's a cliffhanger source of anxiety that I don't really need. There's plenty of problems in the world such as the outcome of nailbiter elections that matter more to my life. Sports is basically just a game among multi millionaires.

Yes, it would be nice if the team got to World Series as it's the closest big city to me plus the only team that hasn't been there yet, but in the big scheme of things it doesn't make a lot of difference to me.

If we are to blame industry, rather than people, the US auto industry is more to blame for climate change than the oil industry.

Some people tend to blame fossil fuel industry for climate change. I tend to blame consumption more than production, but if we are to blame industry, I blame the automobile industry more.

Around half of all new cars, sold in China, are electric. If it wasn't for import restrictions, less expensive electric cars would be available here. The American auto industry would be devastated. This includes many union jobs as well, so that's why it's not happening.

Then there is the power grid. Suddenly flooding the market with electric cars would require upgrades there.

I still think alternative transit is more the solution, but solutions are usually a mix of many strategies.

As for oil industry destroying the public transit that we had many years back, I think the auto industry is more to blame.

I've seen videos, made in the 1950s by General Motors. Back then, there were a lot of different kinds of busses, trolleys and trains in our cities. Some were electric, others diesel.

This patchwork of largely private systems was starting to fall into disrepair. The automobile and interstate highway system was on the rise. GM and others had plans to standardize buses for simpler maintenance. One style of bus with standardized parts.

They pushed diesel, instead of electric, for more flexibility as electric could not go away from the overhead wires. They also could make a profit selling the standardized buses.

As suburbs spread out, the diesel buses could follow while electric was confined to major routes along the wire. I would guess another factor is that overhead wiring is seen as unsightly.

I remember, during my childhood, seeing electric buses in Seattle with the driver outside the bus using a long pole to reattach the bus to the overhead wires. Back then, the connections weren't as reliable as today.

At the start of my college days, Seattle was removing overhead transit wires, but reversed that process when the 1970s oil crisis hit. By the mid 1970s, Seattle decided to keep and even add to it's electric bus system which works well today.

A feat for humanity that even Trump can't stop.

An unbelievable feat for humanity. If all goes according to plan, even Trump can't stop it's trajectory. Voyager 1 will be 1 light day, approximately 16 billion miles away from Earth on November 15, 2026 — the equivalent of one light-day.

It will be that far out even if plans to continue monitoring it's signal, from Earth, run afoul of Trump's budget cuts or technical malfunctions ending the radio connection. The spacecraft will still be travelling out there.

I'm not hearing of any plans to stop monitoring it's signal to save a few cents, but other scientific research can be on the table. Whether it's radio will keep functioning another year is a question, but it seems to be hanging in there so far, in spite a some glitches along the way.

Even Trump can't reach out and stop the spacecraft, that was launched in 1977 hurtling out from the solar system.

Amazing that they still can pick up it's faint signal. It's still doing research, though most of the instruments, such as the camera, have been powered down due to less energy from it's plutonium batteries.

Trump can be a king when Republican majorities in Congress and the Supreme Court rubber stamp what he wants.

A big problem with Trump is that the Republican majorities in Congress and the Supreme Court seem to act, most of the time, like a rubber stamp approving anything the president wants. This president can be a dictator or a king if allowed. I hope the No Kings Rallies are well attended and peaceful.

Fighting fire with fire usually never works for overcoming oppression.

It seems like violence is a bad strategy for oppressed people to use, yet it's a common practice. Hamas's brutal attack on innocent civilians, in Israel on that October 7th, brought a response from the far more powerful Israeli military. Hamas ended up on the loosing side.

Netanyahu is also like a bully and he has far more military power than Hamas. Many Israeli citizens don't like him. He is more brutal than some other leaders in that society.

Trump fits in to that tough world where he throws his weight around to get what he wants; another case of "might makes right" which is where violence usually leads us.

I hope that the dictatorial powers of these leaders can be broken with soft power; so to speak. Economic problems, at home, could unravel Trump's agenda. The right wing leader in Argentina is now facing economic problems. People often turn against incumbents.

I would like to see changes happen due to innovation and peaceful activism. Here in US and some other countries, the gay rights movement is an example of changes in thinking that has happened, for the most part, without violence. Innovations and new technologies can disrupt entrenched power as well.

Can a message get though the static? These days, static is information overload. In the past, it was distance and natural static.

In the old days of broadcast radio and TV, much of the audience size was determined by the power of the station's transmitter. How far could the signal reach before it was drowned out by distance and static?

On today's social media, even small signals, like my website, have a global reach. The limit is not natural distance and static, but another kind of "static" - information overload. Can a small website and Facebook presence get much audience, given all the other information sources competing for attention time?

These days, the static is information, not just the random radio hiss, or television snow of past eras. Continued below.

In the past, some TV static was said to come from the Big Bang's cosmic background radiation while most of it was from local sources, such as thermal noise, or appliances and thunderstorms. Photo I found on Wikimedia Commons.

When I was in grade school, I was impressed with the new transistor radios that people had. I remember thinking, "The more transistors radios had, the more amplification for picking up distant, faint signals. Most transistor radios had 6 transistors. I thought, "If one had 100 transistors, maybe it could pick up stations all around the world?"

Later I realized that no matter how much amplification a radio had, the faint signals would still be lost in the static. Amplification would also amplify the static so the faint distant station could still not be heard above the static.

On shortwave international band, stations could still be heard around the world, but that was different from the AM band used by those pocket transistor radios.

The power of the radio station was important back then. At night, some AM signals could travel farther due to nighttime ionospheric skip. 50,000 watt KGO, in San Francisco, was a powerhouse that could send a clear signal up and down the entire west coast. It was top rated for audience size for many years.

Then along came the internet so transmitter power became less relevant. KGO basically imploded into a low rated business, in terms of audience share. Continued below.

Above: Old nighttime coverage map from another big San Francisco station; KNBR 1970s.
Below: Part of a bicycle trip I took in 2009. Past KGO transmitter visible from bike path on Dumbarton Bridge.

Today, there is the concept of "going viral;" a term not even known during my childhood. For audience size, some information reaches huge audiences just because it went viral. An idea, meme, song, artwork or even a politician can reach an audience in the millions, or even billions. It's hard to tell why somethings go viral while others don't. This seems to follow various patterns of mass psychology. Why did Kim Kardashian get so famous, or even Donald Trump, for that matter?

The power the transmitter, itself is no longer the issue, but media power is still a factor. I recently read an article by Robert Reich warning about growing consolidation of corporate media power; especially in cable TV networks. The consolidation of ownership and control of media, by a handful of billionaires, is becoming more alarming.

Folks on the left have been talking about this for years, while I have tended to place more blame on people's attention priorities, themselves, versus control from the top. That was past decades, but control from the top seems to be getting more serious today.

It may have also been serious in the days of only 3 big TV networks and the control of big corporations, such as RCA; owner of NBC. I remember hearing, from my parents, that NBC also owned ABC. In old radio days NBC was called the Red Network while ABC was called the Blue Network until such a time that anti trust laws broke it up. I guess CBS was always, somewhat, independent.

Back in the 1990s, I thought that ease of access to the internet for artists and writers, such as myself, would bring on a golden age of diversity, global interaction and enlightenment. Today, it looks like that thought was a bit naive.

I still fault people for most of this problem. Folks are gullible and can easily be manipulated by the rich and famous. Billionaires from Taylor Swift to Donald Trump are able to manipulate us like pawns.

I still hope there will always, somehow, be conversations beyond the command and control of big money.

Deploying National Guard troops is more of an emotional response to the anti police rhetoric of 5 years ago than to the rational needs of 2025.

It seems like deploying the National Guard in cities is not based on a real need. I think much of it is an emotional response to the anti police rhetoric after George Floyd's death during a traffic stop in 2020. Pushback to the debates of past years, rather than today's needs.

I wasn't a fan of most of that anti police rhetoric back then. I often think that anger isn't a useful tool in politics. Accusing ordinary police for being racist stirred up emotion on the other side that is now being manifested in having the National Guard on some city streets.

Back in 2020, I remember seeing a good cartoon about the whole police funding versus social services issue. It depicted the social services as helping the police do their difficult jobs.

It's true that using the police to solve problems tends to be more expensive than having a just society to begin with. Things like more affordable housing can be viewed with the old phrase, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." It's like spending money on health insurance for preventative medicine versus neglecting things until having to go to the emergency room. When police are needed, that's usually like going to the emergency room.

A less accusatory way to look at the issue of police state versus fair society seems more convincing to me. Accusations bring more pushback. Now I wonder how much money is being spent on deploying the National Guard?

Admittedly, I can only speak from my personal experience of positive vibes from local police. I try not to cause trouble, such as reckless driving. Cars can be dangerous. I don't even drive a car.

Back in 2020, much of that controversy had to do with traffic stops, as I remember from the news.

The large national debt has given a boost to home and other asset values.

People worry about the national debt and it is a problem, but the Fed can do quantitative easing to print more money. More money leads to inflation, but some folks benefit from inflation. Those who own assets, such as homes, land and stocks see their asset values rise. Much of the growth of asset values, in the economy, comes from that inflation.

Republicans own the national government and eventually may have to answer to the voters.

At the national level, it looks like the Democrats have no power. Republicans run all branches of government. About the only leverage the Democrats have is to use the filibuster rules in the Senate to shut down government.

Another strategy would be to avoid shutdown and let the Republicans rule till the voters get upset with things like rising health insurance premiums. Voters might toss out Republicans and / or put pressure on the ruling party to better fund the health insurance needs. Fearing voter backlash, some Republicans might break ranks and vote with the Democrats on various issues.

Lower courts can still check the power of the president, but that is subject to the Supreme Court in the long run which is basically run by the Republicans also.

State and local government, here in Washington State, is still functioning as normal. The private sector is still functioning and can put a check on absolute presidential power, such as in the case of media. Think Jimmy Kimmel.

Dare the Republicans to dramatically raise health insurance premiums on many voters.

Government shutdown might be a good strategy for the Democrats, but they could get the blame from voters.

Another strategy would be to let the Republicans have their way which would cause lots of people's health insurance premiums to skyrocket. This could turn many more voters against the Republicans.

At some point, I hope enough Republicans can side with Democrats to curb absolute presidential power.

It does look like the president is accumulating absolute authority. At the national level, we are pretty close to a dictatorship of executive orders. Congress and Supreme Court have been allowing this.

If enough Republicans, in Congress, vote with the Democrats on certain measures to curb presidential power, that could still limit the president. This means there is still power in taking moderate positions that can bring a few Republicans to side with the Democrats.

As for more far to the left Democrats, the Democrats need all the votes they can get. The big tent should try and be as inclusive as it can, but a strategy of moderate votes can gain traction in the current situation.

My personal lifestyle is still quite different than mainstream American consumerism, for the most part. It may be radical in a different way. Not traditionally far to the left, but it's still outside the norm. In the long run, I still think things like my own lifestyle of minimalism are the best roads to a sustainable future. I may be bias to my own lifestyle, but that seems like the best somewhat radical strategy. It's radical in a different way than most people's definition of the radical side of left politics.

I'd never heard of Jimmy Kimmel till this controversy. I don't watch regular TV.

I never heard of Jimmy Kimmel till this recent controversy since I don't watch regular TV. Glad he's back. Now I read his comeback show had 6.3 million viewers on network TV in spite of Sinclair stations refusing it.

Even more impressive was over 26 million people across social media platforms like YouTube. The media landscape is evolving.

Photos from my latest bicycle / transit tours now on Flickr.

Sculpture made from railroad fasteners near bicycle trail in Redmond, WA.

Photos from my latest tour here

A link to very interesting TED Talk on autism or better called neurodiversity.

Autism is in the news. I'm pretty sure I am on the Autism Spectrum. I prefer the term neurodivergent. It can be either a blessing or a curse depending on situation and severity. Neurodiversity can bring outside the box insights as well.

At Senior Center, we have TED Talk events where a TED talk is shown on a big screen and then people discuss it. Very interesting as the topic was autism / neurodiversity. It's not always a curse.

Here is another interesting TED Talk video I just found.

It's harder for compassionate Democrats to say no to more folks though saying yes might sink the whole lifeboat.

In a New York Times editorial by Josh Barro, I read that unauthorized immigrant population exploded to 14 million in 2023 from 10.5 million in 2021 during Biden's presidency. Democrats still get blame, but I look deeper at a dilemma that many countries face around the world; the overwhelming number of folks needing help and safety among the over 8 billion people in this world.

It's harder for the Democrats to say no to people from places like Haiti and Afghanistan. It's like the dilemma faced by people on a lifeboat who fear that saving more people will lead to the sinking of the lifeboat.

Many from Afghanistan helped Americans during that war and would face persecution if sent back; for instance.

Still, if not the actual amount of room in the lifeboat, at least the political fortunes of the Democratic Party sink when compassion stretches the situation with housing, infrastructure, traffic and so forth.

In Christianity, the Sermon on the Mount seems to call for a radical form of compassion, but the reality of people and politics, around the world, is much more limited.

Restricting supply at the producer level tends to drive consumers to right wing populism.

I tend to favor ways to reduce reduce carbon footprint from the consumption side. Things like encouraging home solar, public transit and planning that creates less sprawl.

Lots of other people try to constrict consumption at the production level. Things like regulating the businesses that produce the products such as housing and gasoline.

Problem is, when supply is tight, it tends to drive grassroots populism to the right, rather than to the left.

I would think that, in an ideal world, limited supply would push people toward progressive innovations such as alternative energy and alternative lifestyles, but it seems like the opposite is the case. In much of the world, populism tends to double down on the things people feel that they need to live in today's world. Frustration and lack of a big picture perspective often pushes people to the right.

Pendulums do swing so after a turn to the right, sometimes right wing leaders get into trouble after they become incumbents. Frustrated people turn on incumbents. Looks like Trump is now dropping in the polls.

What is the money based on. It's based on people's willingness to provide goods and services for the money.

People often discuss what our money is based on. Some say it once was based on the gold standard. It's now what's called a "fiat currency" whose value comes from the trust and confidence people place in the issuing government rather than from a physical commodity like gold.

Lots of people don't have faith in our current government; especially the leadership, but money still works. I say money is based on the goods and services it buys. That's the true economy. It's the goods and services people are willing to provide for the money. One can't eat money, itself. Money is just a system of accounting. It's the actual goods and services that makes up the economy.

The Federal Reserve can just create the money, but that's just numbers, like moving a decimal point over in a computer.

More money doesn't necessarily mean more goods and services. It can just mean inflating the cost of existing goods and services. The whole thing is a balancing act, but the true economy is the goods and services. People tend to forget that, in my opinion.

Often new money does help resolve bottlenecks and greases the economy. It can spur the development of new facilities to help a growing economy. Other times it can be more problem than it's worth. It's a balancing act.

The economy is things like labor, technology, expertise, land, natural resources and so forth.

Expectations are part of the equation as well; at least the equation for satisfaction. If expectations are too high, people can feel impoverished. Expectations can drive us to strive for more, but expectations can also be a burden. It's another balancing act.

If a day was devoted to Charles Kirk, would there be days for others of different political persuasions?

I follow the mainstream news, but have avoided participating in the shouting about the killing of Charlie Kirk. It is too bad that he was shot. Still, I don't see it as the fault of either the left or right side of the political spectrum. It's more about anger and another deranged gunman.

On a local note, I read that Lynden Schoolboard tabled a resolution to devote a day in the calendar to Kirk. I think if they were devote such a day, there are many other people who should have days in the calendar.

Obviously, to be fair, some folks on the left side of the political spectrum should have a day. Yes, there is the national holiday for Martin Luther King and there is also a holiday for Columbus, which some folks don't like so they wish to rededicate that holiday as "Indigenous People's Day."

In an ideal world, there could be a day for everyone, but there are only 365 days in a year. There's limited resources (days) to work with or fight over.

My grade school, in Pullman, WA. was named for the great inventor Thomas Edison. To be fair, maybe they should name a school for Nikola Tesla who was an ingenious propionate for alternating current.

In the early years of electricity, Edison insisted on sticking with DC current, instead of AC because that's what his powerplants were built for. Edison had so much money already invested in the old system that he resisted the change. In the long run AC current proved much better for building the power grids that we use today, however.

Deflation isn't all bad. In the electronics industry, it means prices go down and quality goes up with time. People buy anyway.

I hear that economists dread deflation. "Heaven forbid, consumerism might slow down and put folks out of work as people postpone purchasing to wait for lower prices."

The electronics industry has thrived in spite of deflation there. Computing prices come down, but people still buy cause the new stuff is more powerful than the old stuff. Imagine that, lower prices and better products to boot.

Fossil fuel industry may go the way of Polaroid.

The fossil fuel industry could go the way of Kodak and Polaroid when they failed to adapt to digital photography.

In the past, people might have accused me of being an apologist for that industry as I thought they were trying to adapt to clean energy sourcing when British Petroleum changed it's name to "Beyond Petroleum."

I thought consumers were more to blame being slow to adopt alternatives, thus driving market forces.

Now, in the era of Trump, it looks like the establishment is rededicating America to a fossil fuel economy. Stupid.

I can see the reality that fossil fuel infrastructure is still useful given the way things are today. It can maybe even be somewhat beneficial to the environment such as replacing coal with natural gas, or replacing dirty overseas fossil fuel with fuel produced in USA under higher environmental standards; for production at least.

Still, carbon dioxide looks and smells deceptively clean, but mass production of carbon dioxide, by consumers burning fossil fuels drives climate change.

Maybe positive tipping points toward clean energy worldwide while US government on a backslide.

We hear about negative tipping points bringing climate change. Now there is a more optimistic book out called "Positive Tipping Points." "How to fix the climate crisis." Author interviewed on the BBC. I link in comments.

Worldwide, lots of progress is being made. Electric car sales are way up in places like China and Norway. Batteries and solar panels are getting better and less expensive.

The US government is sliding backwards, but much of the rest of the world is still changing. This could leave US in economic problems which eventually would cause even the backwater US to change for the sake of its economy. Around the world, renewable is getting less expensive and better over time.

Search for BBC The Climate Question Show, Sept. 14 2025.

Washington State pays the price for addressing climate change.

Washington's cap and trade system to reduce fossil fuel use is designed to ratchet up tighter each year. That is to gradually ween the state off of fossil fuel use. The law seems to be moving faster toward the goal of reducing fossil fuel use than a lot of the people are ready for, I guess. Thus some folks complaining about the high gas prices.

I think a carbon tax is a better idea than cap and trade. It's simpler and easier to understand. It does, however have a similar affect to make fossil fuel more expensive and transfer some of the money to developing an economy with a lower carbon footprint.

The regular gas tax has gone up also. Somebody has to pay for the roads and road building is expensive.

Image from KIRO Radio.

It's natural to have some wealth inequality, but USA has gone too far down that road like a runaway train.

The US is becoming an oligarchy instead of a democracy?

When there is private ownership of business, either large or small, there is going to be owners of the business itself who have more wealth than the average household. That's to be expected, but the concentration of extreme wealth at the very top is out of balance. It's like a runaway train set in motion by mostly Republican political forces and other conditions in society.

Search for Sept. 15 2025 NPR Morning Edition.

I heard an interview with the author of the book "Tomorrow is Yesterday."

Clear down to the grassroots level, it seems like the majority of the Palestinians and the majority of the Israelis actually do hate one another. I'd guess there are many exceptions to the majority opinions on both sides, but why has the Two State Peace Process not worked so far?

On NPR, I heard about a new book, "Tomorrow is Yesterday."

It seems like too much resentment is remembered from past wrongs. There is a lack of forgiveness and more of an interest in retribution among the bulk of people. Both sides have totally different goals.

I'd add that the the land area is very small. Two populations full of resentments are trying to share and divide up a space smaller than just a few counties here in Washington State.

On September 13 2025 Weekend Edition Saturday. One can search for interview on NPR.

Seems like the more we complain about income inequality, the worse it gets.

In spite of many decades that people have been complaining about US income and wealth inequality, the problem is getting worse. The rhetoric, most people use against it, doesn't seem to work. Other strategies might work better; like talking about how we can build a sustainable economy, given the environmental restraints of planet earth. This could, ironically, bring us closer to income equality through an indirect approach.

We need to talk more about how much we worship money versus other qualities of life such as community connection and health.

Ironically, I think more focus on these deeper issues would bring us more wealth and income equality. For instance talking about planning topics so a place to call home can be affordable.

We need to discuss more about whether the goals and aspirations of our lives are really bringing us a sense of fulfilment and peace of mind. Not that everyone will think alike. Each of us have our own stories, but these deeper questions, about our lives and society, need to be talked about more on the political campaign trails.

Identity politics or kitchen table topics.

Quite a few people think the Democratic Party should focus less on identity politics and more on kitchen table topics; whatever that means. Yes, I think figuring out planning so our lives can function is needed. We need to be discussing housing, transportation, water, energy and so forth. Nuts and bolts topics.

Identity politics is important, but maybe second to figuring out how we can make our society function for the bulk of the people.

Minority views and alternative lifestyles can help. They can provide more than just another burdensome set of demands. Mainstream society is getting more unsustainable. We need alternative innovations.

Is it overpopulation, or just not enough parking for all the cars? Resentment against immigration is being driven by all these factors.

Amazing how much traffic there is everywhere. There are bike lanes, but wow, I never fail to be impressed by the volume of traffic.

Yes, I think overpopulation is the main driver of anti immigrant resentment. Our spaces are getting more crowded. It isn't just the number of people, which have doubled since my college days, but more importantly the number of cars. I ask AI. A 400% increase worldwide since 1975. The number of cars on the road worldwide has grown from approximately 300 million in 1975 to nearly 1.5 billion today, an increase of about 400%. This growth has been driven primarily by rising incomes and urbanization in emerging economies in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. My interpretation below.

In US it hasn't changed that much except nearly doubling population so doubling number of cars. We were car dependent in 1975 also.

Thinking of climate change, the rest of the world has changed more dramatically pushing that worldwide average to 400% more cars since 1975. This is why we notice climate change now, when back in 1975 it was hardly an issue. Scientists knew it would come, but people tend to think about short term needs more than what might happen 50 years down the road.

Back then, they thought oil would run out, but then we figured out how to extract it from shale. Now the climate effect is 400% more. Climate change has arrived.

Number of cars is also an indicator of overall consumption in homes and other areas. Growing world prosperity and demands which are double the underlying population growth. Another figure effecting our lives; housing cost.

I wrote this on Facebook during my September 2025 transit / bicycle tour. Now transfering to my blog. Amazing how much traffic there is on Everett Bothell Highway near 405! Glad there is a shoulder, but I never fail to be amazed how car dependent people are!

Substack may fit me better than Blue Sky as an alternative to Facebook.

I find I haven't been using the Blue Sky social media platform. Facebook still brings the response. Other platforms have less momentum of engagement. Also Blue Sky's limit of 300 characters is too confining for my nuance. It's more an alternative to Twitter than Facebook and I don't use Twitter.

Recently, I've started learning about Substack. From what I gather, it's like a blog space / social media with room for nuance. A difference from Facebook is the revenue to run the platform coming from subscriptions instead of advertising. Less, or no, pressure from advertising to drive algorithms seeking just clickbait.

One can still have and follow blogs on Substack without subscription, but the more popular blogs, I guess, will generate a cut of subscription revenue for the platform so it can run without the problem of ad driven algorithms.

I think that's correct, but I'm still learning about it.

It seems like a good idea to me. I'd say, "let the popular celebrities like Taylor Swift or Kim Kardashian (I'm being a bit cynical) bring in the revenue to pay the bills while the rest of us can go along for the ride."

I know there are also lots of real thought provoking celebrities, like astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson and economist Paul Krugman, who may have many paid subscribers as well.

For me, the important part is to be able to participate in meaningful conversation, even at a small scale in terms of celebrity status.

The masses of consumers use more resources than the small number of billionaires, but the billionaires are bad leaders, leading consumers to ecological doom.

We could remove the small number of billionaires, but the pollution causing outputs from the companies that they are invested in would still be demanded by the much larger number of consumers. The investments would just be transferred, so it's shuffling deckchairs. Mass consumption uses most of the resources.

Yes, I do think the billionaires have greater influence in society than ordinary individuals. They have been bad leaders. The whole value system, based too much on money versus other values in life, is corrupt.

The sand battery for heat storage. Another good reason for compact, campus style development versus sprawl.

I read that Finland now has a sand battery in use for storing heat from intermittent energy sources; such as solar energy. This can work well for district heating systems; such as central steam heating systems on university campuses.

Excess power, from solar panels during sunny daylight hours, can be used to heat the sand. Sand is easier to work with than water at higher temperatures; otherwise they would just use water, I guess. When water is heated, it becomes pressurized. Sand can be heated to over 1,000 degrees F.

At night, air can be circulated through the hot sand and then go to a heat exchanger to heat water. Hot water is then piped to buildings that are close to one another similar to the steam / hot water systems on many college campuses. This system could fit into an already existing district heat system, like I would guess at a college campus.

This could fit into my philosophy of more compact city planning, versus spread out sprawl. Using a sand battery in a sprawling area would be more difficult due to bringing hot water out to each house. That would imply using it to generate electricity to send longer distances. I think generating electricity from the stored heat would add another layer of complexity.

Just moving the heat itself into an already existing heat distribution system; such as a district heating system for a campus, would be easier. This heat battery could also be used for some industrial processes as well.

Feedback loop and the runaway train.

I tend to blame ordinary people's lifestyles, consuming habits and voting patterns for our problems; for the most part. Institutions and corporations follow the mass market, but they do amplify the trends in a feedback loop. Advertising, lobbying and money plays a big role in that feedback loop.

Now it looks like USA is a runaway train toward right wing authoritarianism, that most people don't want. Much of this, the law of unintended consequences. As the situation gets obvious, hopefully more people are now pushing the train in a different direction. People tend to respond to crisis. Pendulums tend to swing.

Blaming corporations has been associated with the left, but it recently has fueled right wing populism as well.

For most of our economic and social problems, I tend to blame people's behavior, in mass. Other folks tend to blame institutions such as corporations and / or government.

Recently much of the blame against corporations which has traditionally been thought of as being from the left, has shifted to being from the right. Lots of blame now comes from the right against corporate elites, government elites and so forth. The right has always tended to blame government while the left blames business, but now blame of both fuels the right.

Yes, some blame can be laid on elites and institutions, but I think this wholescale hostility and trashing of our institutions can, ironically, bring us to a more authoritarian society.

Are 76% of Americans living with chronic conditions? Maybe no one to blame. Is it a result of people living longer?

The figure of around 76% US population having chronic disease has surfaced in Kennedy's testimony to Congress. Again, the blame game is going. He wants to blame former management of CDC as the rate is higher now than it was in the 1950s and 60s.

Back then, our population was younger so maybe it's no one's fault. A higher percent of our population is older and more vulnerable to chronic disease, now than back then. I would also blame sedentary lifestyles. One can also wonder where he got those figures. Did he pull them out of a hat? If I were secretary of health, I would try and get more people to ride bicycles instead of driving cars. Diet and lots of other factors are there also, but plain age is a big factor. People are living longer. Maybe more people are surviving with their chronic diseases when they would have been dead and not counted in the population before.

Is medicine saving lives looked at as a good thing or a bad thing?

Maybe a bad thing if more people are surviving with diseases and thus being counted in the statistics with those conditions.

Somehow, I think that could be considered a good thing. Positive spin, or negative spin.

I think blaming is one of our culture's biggest problems. Is it big pharma, politicians or space aliens that have caused our health problems? I doubt it. Maybe it's stress from all that finger pointing.

Our standard of living today versus 1970s, like comparing apples to oranges.

Has our standard of living improved, or decreased since the 1970s? It's really a case of comparing apples to oranges.

If things like the smartphone's capabilities are counted as wealth, smartphone owners would be able to afford greater information capabilities than multi billion dollar institutions, such as NASA, could afford in the 1970s.

At the same time, something as mundane as having a place to live is less affordable. The capabilities of the smartphone isn't being counted in the GDP the same way that it would have been in the 1970s. Rather than counting it as a multi-million dollar facility, the smartphone can be worth less than one month's rent for a small apartment.

While we have lots more wealth of information at our fingertips, we have to push the economy faster and faster just to keep up with certain necessities that were more taken for granted back in the 1970s.

If one is making their living by selling smartphones, how many does one have to crank out just to pay the rent?

The economy needs to keep running faster and faster just to justify our place on this planet; thus harming us and the planet.

Somehow, we need to find a better way to count the advances we have made, over the years, as wealth.

People fear that taxing the rich will slow the economy. That's a reason why it's politically hard to accomplish.

Taxing the rich can affect the consuming habits of consumers when ripple effects are passed down through the economy.

If ordinary people were more willing to accept change, these ripple effects could be seen as short term negatives bringing long term positives. A changed economy could emerge with other benefits. Long term benefits; such as a greener economy, a fairer economy or even a slower economy that is less of a rat race could emerge.

People fear that taxing the rich will slow the economy. Yes, a slower economy is totally feared, but it could have some benefits of its own in preserving the environment and giving people more time for other quality of life things.

These changes wouldn't necessarily all be about a slower economy as higher taxes can lead to many other long term benefits as well. For instance a more educated and healthier workforce. These changes can lead to better infrastructure for things like public transportation. Investing in scientific research can lead to new forms of technology and wealth as well. A higher GDP could still be a result.

Fear of change is one of the things that keeps the current configuration of our mostly capitalist system in power. Without tossing out capitalism altogether, we could have a different society, probably more like life in the Nordic countries; such as Denmark, I guess. Ordinary people would have to be willing to accept the change as well. Lots of ordinary people seem to be holding tightly onto our current consumeristic society.

Just taxing the top and expecting life to remain the same at the bottom doesn't work. Life at the lower levels has to be part of the change as well.

At Generations of Pride in August.

I'm standing by an old truck from the 1940s. We had a little car and bike show. It was this month's Generations of Pride Event where folks from various generations gather. An ice breaker for conversation was to show off a car. They also included bikes so I wasn't left out.

There were quite a few different cars from vintage to a modern all electric truck by Rivian.

My bike isn't fancy, it's more about the story of biking for me. I also showed a sign I made from a picture I took on one of my trips. Passing a tombstone sales yard in Michigan, back in 1991, I saw a sign that said "Drive Carefully, We can Wait."

Poster from that August 2025 event.

Still a problem of too much oil consumption. India buys from Russia and alternative sources don't have it to spare for sale to India.

Seems like our policy for dealing with Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been floundering for a long time.

Countries, like India, still buy oil from Russia. At first Trump's higher tariffs against India trying to push India away from importing Russian oil were praised. Now that policy is being heavily criticized for pushing India away from US and toward China.

In a more ideal world, supplying India with energy would work better than trying to bully them into not buying from Russia. Could we have provided oil and natural gas to India for helping them transition away from Russian oil?

Probably not. We (the US) now produce plenty of oil and natural gas for our own needs, but USA can't really spare it, let alone ship it to India. Maybe Saudi Arabia could have helped more, but probably not.

European nations have done pretty well weaning themselves off Russian oil and natural gas, but they still depend on phosphate fertilizers from Russia.

Russia has lots of natural resources that much of the rest of the world is still dependent on.

Immigration can increase life expectancy in host countries.

I ask a few questions to Google AI wondering how various policies might effect deathrates.

There is an estimate that cuts in USAID could lead to 14 million more deaths between now and 2030.

Then I wondered about whether restrictions on immigration cause an increase in deaths; especially in countries that people are immigrating from. Answers were a bit inconclusive, but I found out an interesting thing.

Deathrates go down in the countries that people immigrate to. In other words immigration to countries, like USA, lower the death rate here. People who make the journey to immigrate tend to be healthier than domestic population. This is the opposite of what many conservatives think when they talk about all the sick people, supposedly, coming to USA. The immigrant population tends to be healthier than native population.

Still, I think the population growth has other negative effects such as increased traffic due US transportation systems based on private automobile ownership. More people could be accommodated here if our lifestyles and planning were more based on alternative transit.

Apparently, around the 1890s and early 1900s, the increased health effect of immigration was not as evident as it is today. European immigrants, coming to USA in those years, suffered from diseases based on crowded tenements in early US industrial cities. 1918 flu epidemic had an effect on that. Some of these results were inconclusive, however.

Maybe that is why there is the perception of unhealthy immigrants. Of course there are always exceptions to every trend.

Health standards are higher, today so the negative health effects of crowded cities has diminished in recent decades, I assume.

Meanwhile we now have the problem of sprawl; rural areas that are getting too crowded for rural planning. For instance areas that are too crowded for septic tanks to work without contaminating groundwater while still being too sparse for sewer systems to be economically viable.

In towns and cities, it makes sense to have a sewage system, but in spread out rural areas, it costs too much. Rural areas are okay with septic tanks until they get a bit too crowded, then they have problems, but they are still too spread out for centralized sewage systems to be viable. It's the cost of laying out sewer and water system pipes to residents spread way apart.

I remember studying these problems in college planning classes way back in the 1970s. It's the problematic "urban / rural" transition zone. Those areas also have a lot home loss due to forest fires encroaching on residential areas. They tend to have problems with traffic congestion as well.

More compact cities and towns tend to accommodate populations in a better way. A lower footprint on the environment as well. Modern sanitation and other building safety improvements has made urban living safer, I'd guess, than especially back in the early 1900s.

Overpopulation, a driver behind US and worldwide resentment toward immigration.

I think one of the reasons why there is resentment to immigration in many countries has to do with population growth.

US population has grown, recently due mostly to immigration, but imagine what it would be like if US population grew as fast as overall world population. Since 1960, world population has grown by 173% while US population (including immigration) has only grown by 116% (I looked up in Google AI).

I think the high footprint of the average American lifestyle makes population growth more of an environmental problem. Imagine what traffic would be like if the American population had grown by 173% since 1960 instead of only 116%.

Now, world population growth is slowing down, but at the same time the average footprint of individuals, worldwide, grows closer to the footprint of the average American. The average footprint of citizens worldwide is still much smaller than Americans, but look at the math. The world is gridlocked if trying to live like Americans.

Does US get too much of the blame for climate change?

Interesting graph showing how much global economy has grown in recent decades. Source World Bank, 2019 data.

I think that growth of the global economy is the main reason why climate change is a big issue today. The global economy is much bigger than it was in 1960.

The US economy has grown also, but it's share of the entire global economy has gone down. Most of the global growth has been elsewhere, where much of the world's large population has risen out of poverty.

Size of the US economy, per person (per capita) is still close to top worldwide, but with only 347 million in US, versus 8 billion people worldwide, the US share of total economic production has gone down as a percent of world economy. Graph from 1960-2019 figures.

My views seen through the lens of my own interpretation.

I think the US gets too much of the blame for climate change, but the blame is somewhat merited as the US is a world leader. The US still sets the pace for much of the world, but the world follows.

I think some of the right wing trend in US is a reaction to being blamed. Human nature tends to rebel against criticism.

Since the last election brought Republicans back into power, the US government has basically given up on trying to address climate change. I think some of the psychology behind this is out of spite; like a kid in the classroom rebelling against being lectured at; especially while carbon emissions, worldwide, have outpaced US emissions.

Blame of US and other rich nations, from a world where carbon emissions are growing worldwide, has contributed to resentment politics and the rise of right wing politics.

Still emissions per person, in US, are among the highest in the world.

Car use, in US is around 92% of surface commutes, home sizes are larger also.

Worldwide, the total problem is bigger due to world population being 8 billion versus just 347 million. I saw, recently that commutes by car are around 51% globally now. Much of the world is now driving cars.

In many cases it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils if someone much worse is the only other viable choice on the ballot.

If Democrats could just get a few more votes in next year's midterms, they could take back the ability of Congress to restrain Trump's dictatorial powers. This, even in spite of Republican dominated Supreme Court. Even moderate Democrats, still backed by capitalistic interests, would make a big difference. A decisive popular popular vote margin in congressional districts can even overcome gerrymanduring.

As for politicians not backed by big money, they don't get name recognition across this big country. I hear that even Bernie Sanders is among the 1%. He has made more headway than other leftwing politicians, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who tend to only appeal in central cities of certain metropolitan areas. Rural people tend to be more conservative. Suburban people are a huge chunk of our population and they tend to be a tossup.

While our current capitalist / government system is not perfect, it does tend to prop up a certain amount of prosperity and convenience for voters across this country. Big changes, such as significantly high carbon taxes / gas taxes to address climate change cause voter rebellion.

Personally, I would like to see a somewhat radically different world that is less dependent on consumerism, private automobiles and things like single family neighborhoods. I would like to see less wealth inequality.

Even big changes in taxes, to tax wealthy folks and corporations more, is likely to have consequences for the consuming and working middle class. I would be okay with many of those changes as I am critical of the large incomes that even non 1% high income professionals make. I notice things like the vast wealth gap between homeowners and renters, for instance.

I tend to be critical of more than just the wealth of business (including corporations that people like to shop at) as I think making changes there would ripple down through the whole system.

Meanwhile, even the middle class and especially upper middle class is likely to want to hold onto the status quo enough to create large pushback against radical change. Incremental change can still work.

Moderate Democrats, even those funded by big money, can at least hold the line against one party, one person rule of Trump.

Today, it seems like our biggest hope, before the next year's midterm election, is for more congressional Republicans to break with Trump. If more Republicans were to side with the block of minority Democrats trying to hold the line in Congress, that would make a big difference. Life in states, with Democratic majorities in state governments, seems to be better as well.

Some people are cynical enough to want to throw out the whole system; thus not even supporting moderate Democrats. I say, about that, "be careful what you ask for as you might get it." Our system, thrown into total chaos and / or complete authoritarian rule, would be very uncomfortable to say the least.

Artificial intelligence can answer questions, from individuals in the public, when experts, in various fields, don't have time for this kind of dialog.

I have been starting to use artificial intelligence to ask questions that arise from my unique perspectives about economics and to some extent about physics. Answers have been surprisingly useful. It's kind of like dialoging with experts.

I find that most human experts don't have the time to discuss these topics with me. Yes, I enjoy the discussions I have with ordinary people, both online and in person, but experts in economics and scientists tend to not have the time to dialog with people from the general public.

I am aware of the old phrase "garbage in, garbage out" when it comes to answers from machines, but the answers I am getting make good sense to me. I have posed a few questions in Google Search and AI comes up with a summery of answers that seem quite useful to me.

Over time, I'm planning to share results from some of these discussions.

Can Washington State's Climate Commitment Act survive politically as it continues ratcheting up as time goes on?

People often complain that Washington State has among the highest gas prices in USA. A big part of that cost is our Climate Commitment Act which, basically, taxes fossil fuel and funds things like improvements to public transit. I don't drive, myself, so public transit and bicycling is my means of transportation.

I think that tax is written so as to ratchet up each year as it strives to push us toward transitioning away from fossil fuels.

The law survived an attempt at the ballot, last year, to repeal it. Still, as it ratchets up, it may face more pressure to repeal. I got to thinking that if it faces a precarious future it could possibly be capped so as to not ratchet up, but remain in place at its present form. This could continue things that it currently funds at their current levels.

Due to pressure from the Republican Party to give up on doing anything about climate change, plus the continuing rising cost from the ratcheting, that law may face continued pressure to repeal.

Glad it at least survived last year's election. Washington State tends to vote more liberal than nationwide.

It still isn't my favorite idea as I think a simple carbon tax would be better. This is a cap and trade law which is more complicated, but still better than nothing.