Riding bikes to shoebox-sized apartments can still be a prosperous vision of the future.

Some Trump supporters might think my vision of the future is riding bikes to shoebox-sized apartments and eating crickets, to quote a DOT spokesperson interviewed on NPR.

Except for the crickets, some of that is correct, but my vision of the future also involves chatting with AI, following the news from space telescopes. Biking around town following the progress of construction projects. Enjoying the sight of new construction. Looking forward to technological breakthroughs like hydrogen fusion. Having lots of friends who are millionaires (these days, just being a homeowner can mean being a millionaire).

I've experienced riding in a Rivian all electric truck, it was fun and interesting. I've also been on all electric buses and the Skytrain in Vancouver, BC. I look forward to the days of safer, self driving cars. Among my favorite travel destinations are the observation floors of tall skyscrapers.

Part of my view from observation deck of Columbia Tower in 2025 during a transit / bike trip to Seattle.

My vision of the future seems bright and prosperous to me. I still find biking a friendly way to follow the construction sites and serendipitously meet up with friends along the way. It's a more interesting way to stay in shape than working out in a gym.

As bike information is being removed from Trump's Department of Transportation, a DOT spokesperson told NPR in an emailed statement, "This is a common sense approach despite the Left's belief that everyone should ride a bike to their shoebox-sized apartment to eat crickets to achieve a phony climate agenda." <

The way climate change is discussed may not be that convincing to some economics minded Americans.

Some conservatives don't believe climate change is much of a problem. A 1.5 degree C temperature rise since, pre industrial revolution, doesn't seem that much. Here in USA, we use Fahrenheit scale so it's actually 2.7, in our degrees. A bigger number. Maybe scientists should describe it in our "American" terms.

Still, only 2.7 doesn't seem that much to us. The change comes in well over 100 years, but there are more tangible effects, from this change; such as severe drought in the American Southwest.

California is America's most productive agricultural state. Droughts, for year after year, are likely to end much of California agriculture.

Drought with forest fires threaten to destroy the California redwoods. Those in the Sierra Mountains at least. Loss of a national treasure.

Lake Mead and Lake Powell, on the Colorado River, are running so low of water that 5 states, they serve, have to cut way back on water use. Lake levels, at the dams, are getting so low that there may not be enough "water drop," at the dam, to generate power.

The Southwest could see a few more wet years, but most scientists think the long term trend is "dry" because of climate change. In the recent past, there has been several dry years in a row. This trend may continue well into the future.

Yes, the Earth will survive and it's seen climate change before. The main difference is that we have not seen this type of climate change since the start of modern civilization.

It's the continuation of our way of life and our economy that we should be worried about.

Things can change. California's Sierra Nevada Mountains will survive, but they might become more like dry mountain ranges of Nevada's deserts. The Sierra might become more like mountains of the Mojave Desert farther south.

We, humans, might be able to adapt. I already hear of farmers, in California's Central Valley, who can no longer get irrigation water. They are giving up on food crops and turning the fields over to solar panels.

The world is changing, but conservatives and others alike tend to try and hang onto the status quo.

The thousand mile salad may actually help us adapt to climate change.

There is news about a very good crop of potatoes, from Maine, headed west to fill-in for poor harvests, in western states, due to the ongoing drought. Traveling west by rail. More than 500 truckloads worth.

I got to thinking the opposite of what a lot of people think. Climate change may increase, rather than decrease, the distance food travels from farm to table.

Food can travel fairly cheaply; especially by rail. Shipping in food can create a lower carbon footprint than having people try to grow their own food by living in rural settings and then having to commute to their real jobs and errands.

Droughts and floods, in various areas, are likely to mean foods travel farther to complete the diet. Foods from farther afield mean more diversity and redundancy of supply. Conditions vary in different areas around the world. If drought hits one area, better conditions in another area can even out the supply.

What's often called the "thousand mile salad," with components from far afield, continues to feed us.

My thoughts, often the opposite of popular opinion.

For most people, it seems like reducing the carbon footprint tends to favor urban living. Rural folks tend to be more dependent on fossil fuel vehicles to live their lives with longer commutes. Urban dwellers are less apt to be living in detached residences. Easer to heat and cool.

Urban living usually means less space for growing food, so a low carbon footprint urban life can mean food still travels a long ways. The food travels instead of the people.

There can be some food growing space in urban areas. There can be community gardens, indoor, vertical and rooftop gardens. The economics of bringing food in from long distances can still pencil out more faverably, however.

The tendency to want to grow one's own food could actually increase overall carbon footprint if it pushes residences out into more rural settings. Food by itself can be shipped long distances at fairly low enenrgy cost versus people having to commute long distances, each day, to maintain their lives and pay the bills.

As climate change reduces agricultural production in certain areas, the ability to source food from a diversity of regions can come in handy.

In some ways, this is nothing new as large parts of the American west has such a dry climate that the main "local" agriculture is grazing beef cattle. One does not live by beef alone.

A desire for relationships can cause a pressure to conform.

Over the years, I have tried to live my life in a way that is consistent with my political views. Consistent with my ideas about reducing climate change and so forth.

In some ways, this could isolate me from mainstream society, but I have found alternative ways to make connections with people. Not being that much into romantic relationships has helped. My way of thinking about companionship and eroticism is different.

I'm less family and relationship oriented than the norm. That seems to make it easier to not be pulled into the need to look like one has money. In the world of relationships, people are often judged by the car they drive, their clothing and their ability to have the home with a white picket fence. I've avoided that pressure.

Having to provide for a family with kids adds more responsibility. I'd guess, it's possible to have those things without joining the main stream rat race, but seems like it's more difficult.

I seem to have different expectations and desires than the majority of people.

Getting off dependency on fossil fuels. Temporary fixes for fuel price surges and replacing oil from Russia. Balancing contradictory goals.

Listening to Canadian Radio, news related to oil comes to mind.

British Columbia has a carbon tax which adds to it's high gas prices. Now that there is talk about gas tax holidays, in some US states, there is talk in BC as well. Could it be a temporary rebate from part of the carbon tax? If there is a carbon tax to begin with, there can be something to rebate.

Now I hear it is a rebate in BC's ICBC insurance rates. In BC, the province runs the vehicle insurance system. That system is said to be on sound financial footing.

BC taxes, including the carbon tax, can provide a cushion so there can still be money for things like transit and road maintanence. Here in USA, there is talk of gas tax cuts, but the taxes are used for infrastructure. Who pays for the roads?

I was thinking about my idea of a variable rate carbon tax. Raise the carbon tax, when fossil fuel prices are low, but bring it down when prices are high in order to stabilize fossil fuel prices somewhat. I think this would provide a more stable price footing for alternative energy. In much of the 2020 downturn, fossil fuel prices were too low leading to less push toward alternatives.

Someone commenting on my Facebook wall did suggest, however a different strategy. Rather than temporarily lowering carbon taxes during periods of high gas prices, use money to lower overall sales taxes which tend to be regressive taxes. There was an initiative to do that, several years back, here in Washington State, but it didn't pass at ballot box.

In other news. Canada is talking about temporarily increasing oil production to help Europe reduce it's use of Russian oil. How would that oil get to Europe? Much would travel by rail to the US Gulf Coast for shipment, from those ports, to Europe; the same route that Keystone Pipeline would have gone.

Oil trains might be better as a temporary solution. If Keystone Pipeline were built, it would be more permanent infrastructure. If we want to cut back on using fossil fuels, in the long run, we still shouldn't need that pipeline.

Conservatives still think we should have built, or should still build, that pipeline. Another pipeline to climate change. I think less consumer use of fossil fuels can help us as various countries scramble to help Europe. Countries are scrambling to patch up holes in supply. Holes related to increased demand after the pandemic and the situation with Russia.

This over populated world's population growth could be stalling soon, well shy of the 10 billion predicted due to increasing famine and Russia's war in Ukraine

I am beginning to think that world population may not reach the 10 or 11 billion projected by 2050. Increasing starvation, due to climate change and other factors; most notably due to the folly of war between Russia and Ukraine, are predicted to take their tolls.

Ukraine and Russia have both been large wheat producers growing much of the food used, especially in countries like Egypt and Sudan; according to a recent article in New York Times. Recent flooding in China has harmed crops.

There is an irony in the conservative theology of Russia that passed anti gay propaganda laws to supposedly protect children. Many children are now dying in the war.

Unlike most of this crowded world, Russia has been loosing population while taking measures to try and increase childbirth in that country.

Ironically, there is now a mass migration of people trying to escape the war in Ukraine and the strict crackdown on freedom of information in Russia.

Countries in Europe, plus USA and a few others, are worried about more and more refugees that are knocking at our doors. In some cases, the refugees are the more creative, "think outside the box" folks who are escaping more strict and stifling societies.

The times they are a changing. Less water in Colorado River. Likely to be the new normal.

Image I found on Facebook.

A large region of the US has built an economy on the assumption that there would be sufficient water in the Colorado River. Now it looks like the "new normal" means the river could be nearly drying up.

Not enough water height behind dams to run the turbines. Not enough water for agriculture and populations of the American Southwest.

Hydro electric power was not a huge source of the south west's power mix, but it's non fossil fuel nature will be missed as power demand could be made up by switching on other sources; such as coal plants, if solar and wind is not built quickly enough.

If dams have to be removed, I've heard that covering much of the of the area, that was submerged by the reservoir, in solar panels could generate more power than the dam itself.

I've heard it said that they should never have built Gen Canyon Dam, up stream from Hoover Dam. Evaporation from the surface and leakage out of that reservoir makes the water shortage worse downstream at Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam. Lake mead is also very low.

There are proposals to drain Glen Canyon Reservoir to consolidate storage of the water in Lake Mead. Putting all the water in one lake, instead of two, means less lake surface area for evaporation.

Low lake level at Glen Canyon Dam has already brought back a lot of beautiful canyonlands that were submerged when Glen Canyon Dam was built.

My, Robert Ashworth's opinion at least.

Why we should worry about climate change even though the earth's climate would keep changing anyway without us?

Some people think climate change isn't a big deal. The area that is now Seattle was under a mile of ice 13,000 years ago. So I guess it doesn't matter if much of Florida is under water in 30 years?

Wait a minute. It should matter to us. People alive today will probably still be living in 30 years.

It's a matter of time scales. It should matter to civilization, insurance companies, investors, parents with kids and so forth as climate change is bringing big changes now and in the next few decades.

Drought in the American Southwest seems like an even more imediate problem than rising sea levels. That's why folks are worried about climate change. It isn't about 13,000 years, or millions of years when we think there were palm trees at the north pole. Do you want that to possibly happen in the near future, while we are still on this planet? It's mostly about us.

My thoughts after Joe Biden's first state of the union speech

I listened to Biden's state of the union address last night. Some good points and some obvious omissions. It was good to hear him cheer on Ukraine and criticize the wealthy Russian oligarchs. This brought applause from both sides of the aisle.

Missing from the speech was much mention of climate change. That is an inconvenient truth. Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth was well named. Too much discussion of that wouldn't play well as the president uses the speech, in part, to bolster his sagging poll numbers.

On climate change, he has put much of his eggs in the basket of the "Build Back Better" legislation now stuck in Congress.

I'm still voting for Democrats, however.

Climate change needs to be dealt with by the people. It's not something politicians can take a real bold lead on if they fear being voted out. I hope Democrats can weather the inevitable storm of rising gas prices.

As for rallying people against oligarchs, that plays well politically. The obvious problems of putting greed ahead of human dignity. I'm onboard with that.

I remember a conversation, I had a few years back, with someone who had recently lived in New York City. He said, of the housing market, "one is competing with Russian oligarchs and others in the mix as everything is bid up and up in price."

I gather that this is a big problem in major cities around the world; for instance London, UK. Investment money flooding in buying up homes and condos; in some cases just holding the homes empty as a way to "park" money. Money from Russian Oligarchs and others. Vancouver, BC has the problem and now has something called "the empty condos tax" to try and discourage that.

Wealth can often be the enemy of a reasonable community. It can be a stumbling block on the path of a more sustainable climate; for instance pricing people out of cities and into the longer commute radius from work.

Wealth can also be a friend if it is applied to innovations for reducing carbon footprint. Technological innovations as well as helping people live more sustainably. These days, a lot of people need to have things subsidized for life to work. If one isn't wealthy, one is likely to need subsidized housing, public transit, childcare, healthcare and so forth.

It's almost like most people need charity, or government spending, to survive in the shark tank. The world has become, too much, like the shark tank.

Environmentalists need to go after consumers as much as they go after producers

The traditional left tends to attack producers versus consumers.

Warren wants to crack down on banks that invest in fossil fuel production. At the same time, I think something like a carbon tax or less incentives to drive and more incentives for public transit could work better.

I guess people, on the left, shouldn't grumble when gas prices go up since I hear that fuel production is slowed by the disinvestment in fossil fuel that has happened so far. Warren seems to want to ramp up this disinvestment more.

Hurray for higher fossil fuel prices, but this may not be that well understood by the consumer. One danger is return of Republicans to Congress in the next election from angry consumers.

We need to think in terms of the "big picture;" not just each of our selfish little pieces of it.

Some of these reforms, that she is proposing, might not be a bad idea, however. Transparency, so we can see where our financial institutions are still investing in fossil fuels. Yes, it's good to have eyes open.

Eventually this has to effect the consumer. It's naive to think the consumer can avoid consequences. This is where everyone, from consumers to big business to government needs to transition to more walking, bicycling, public transit, electric vehicles, smaller more efficient living spaces, better city planning and so forth.

Business needs to be pushed in this direction, of course. Just pulling some fossil fuel production cards out from under the delicate card house of American society is problematic. It's problematic if people don't see these things in context of the big picture. The big picture being everyone being less dependent of fossil fuels.

I think that more than just the Reagan Revolution lead to wage stagnation, but that was a factor.

A pretty telling graph. About the time of the Reagan Revolution, wage growth, that had happened since WWII, stalled. I remember voting for Carter instead of Reagan in that election.

Still, I also remember thinking that part of the economic stall, that was starting at that time, had to do with environmental limits on middle class American consumption. That was the era of the energy crisis and other limits on land development, waste disposal, mining, logging and so forth.

Another factor is that world economic growth has continued in spite of the stall in USA wage growth. Much of that has to due with people rising out of poverty in places like China. USA is less "top dog" in the world.

Much of the growth in climate change has to do with the world starting to catch up with the way things were being done in USA.

A shift away from US based manufacturing has depressed wages, but it has also led to an abundance of inexpensive goods for the American consumer market.

As I remember, back in the days of the stronger middle class, products, such as shoes and electronics, were quite expensive relative to other things that people took for granted; like being able to afford health insurance and a place to live.

No doubt the Reagan revolution added significantly to income inequality. Much of the foundations for that revolution were laid in the 1970s and are still in effect today. Tax cuts that have mostly helped the already wealthy and upper middle class.

Case in point is California's Proposition 13. It passed in the 1970s to keep property taxes low. This was seen as a "shot heard around the world" leading to the Reagan Revolution.

An unexpected consequence of Prop 13 was that during the massive rise in property values, over the next few decades, home values went up into the millions of dollars while property taxes could not keep pace. Services, such as schools, suffered and some of that burden of taxes was shifted to other taxes as well.

From what I understand, in California, long term homeowners are grandfathered in with low taxes, but new residents, first time homebuyers and renters are priced out of the market.

These kinds of problems happen in other states as well, but California is a glaring example making housing, for many folks, unaffordable.

That's one of the big barriers leading to the demise of the middle class.

I never supported Reagan, but even if Democrats had held majorities during that period, I doubt middle class wage growth would have continued on that same postwar trek.

There are a lot of things "baked into the cake" that led to this change, including things like increased building costs related to concern about the environment.

In many ways, we have been spoiled by our economy. We expect so much in terms of cheap products, low taxes and a clean environment. Given the turn back to the right, politically, and the persistence of "traditional values," we have not adapted well to the changing needs for a more sustainable economy.

We can't really go back to the rising wage era when single family homes were the norm. That's the era when single occupancy vehicles, long commutes and big freeways were pushing forward. These trends were starting to hit their "limits of space" at about that time. Cities running out of space for freeways, rivers running out of space for dams.

That was the world we were building in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

Since then, things haven't changed enough for an environmentally sustainable economy and that world we were building is becoming increasingly hard to enter and increasingly dysfunctional.

We need to build a different type of world for the future.

How the desire to have children can jeopardize future children

One irony about climate change is that the act of raising children often creates pressure on people to live in such a way as to jeopardize the future of children.

Moving out to a house with a yard, for instance, having to get a car, having to get a higher paying job.

Canada could be called land of stranded assets. Trans Mountain pipeline could be a white elephant.

Canada could be called "the land of stranded assets." Oil assets in the ground that are problematic if still banked on as assets. Lots of oil in Alberta and still an oil thirsty world, but the world is thinking, "oil is a killer."

A while ago, a big oil company backed out of it's plan to expand Trans Mountain Pipeline. The plan was to expand a smaller pipeline that goes from from Alberta to Burnaby, BC.

Close to home, Trans Mountain has a branch to Whatcom County Refineries though the expansion plan was just to Burnaby.

The company backed out due to political obstacles, but Canada's government bought the stalled project, a few years back, to keep it alive.

Canada's Liberal Party Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, was walking the tightrope between Alberta's "family wage jobs" and environmentalists.

"Just one more pipeline, then we'll be done," but now it looks like that's not a good idea. Canada's government may have blown billions of dollars on a white elephant pipeline project.

I still see that many of these dilemmas are caused by so much focus on opposing production without opposing consumption. In this case, much of the oil would be for export to Asia and around the world, but consumption is still the issue along with the need for family wage jobs at the production end.

Yes, it's safer to ship oil by pipeline than rail, if oil must be consumed. Yes, maybe it's better to use Canadian oil than from the Middle East, though I hear that Alberta tar sands are about as dirty as it gets.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I think the main focus of activism needs to be on changing the way we plan our living habitats to make them less dependent on fossil fuels. Changing technology, changing lifestyle assumptions and changing neighborhoods.

If we just attack the supply chain, we pull cards out of the foundation of the card house we are living in. It falls on our precarious political situation and (if in USA) could even bring another Trump, if not Trump himself. - Inflation worries. Loss of family wage jobs before alternatives are in place.

My own lifestyle is somewhat minimalistic and not family oriented, however.

In the end, the card house falls on mother Earth which will survive in some form, but not necessarily good news for us.

My comment about bicycling in the Cross Country Checkup thread

One of the Canadian Radio shows I listen to sometimes is a Sunday afternoon call in show called Cross Country Checkup. Last week's topic was about climate change.

The show has a lively Facebook page and I left a comment.

Screen capture.

After the climate conference

What was agreed upon at the climate conference could be a mute point if the politics, lifestyles, technologies and economies around the world don't change so that the goals can be met.

Bellingham considering new tax to pay for programs that reduce carbon footprint

Bellingham Mayor Seth Fleetwood asked the City Council to consider asking voters to approve a tax to pay for citywide programs aimed at reducing the city’s carbon footprint and helping the effort to fight global climate change according to an article in Bellingham Herald.

In my own words.

The idea of a new city tax is being floated. Could help fund converting things to greener technologies; for instance helping homes and businesses convert away from fossil fuel heating.

It's just discussion now, but article says it's likely to be a property tax. I would guess it could be a tax on both homes and businesses. The city doesn't have a lot of taxing tools, in this state without income taxes. Sales taxes are pretty well maxed out.

I think there seems to be a lot of money in real estate. Tied up in real estate at least. Not easy to buy a home, but if mortgage is paid off, a lot of money is tied up at least.

Maybe there would still be breaks for lower income homes and rentals.

Some of the money could go back to the homes for things like heat pumps.

Where the money would be spent is not determined yet.

Besides just the heating, I think the automobile is a big problem. Maybe some of the money can go to electric vehicle charging stations.

In both cases, however, it doesn't do much good if the electricity still has to come from non green energy sources.

Meanwhile, if a tax passes, it can mean that people are willing to step up to the plate.

The Greenway fund, mentioned as an example in article, is kind of like a school levy. It's a property tax that gets renewed by Bellingham's voters periodically when the levy expires. Voters have given it the thumbs up each time.

It pays for our great system of trails and a lot of our park budget.

I tend to think of the greenways as alternative transportation which also relates to climate issues.

The Greenway levies have been on the books since the early 1990s. Before that, just about all of the greenway trails did not exist.

Combining a carbon tax with Modern Monetary Theory might be a good idea

The carbon tax, I am thinking of, would be a variable rate tax. If fossil fuels are too cheap, the tax would boost the price so fossil fuels would not undercut alternative energy in price. The tax could be reduced when the market price of fossil fuels goes back up.

This would, of course, mean adding a tax during recessionary times since that's usually when fossil fuel prices tank. A tax during recession is a no, no, but that is where Modern Monetary Theory could be applied. Instead of trying to boost ourselves out of a recession with tax cuts, we could use new money to stimulate the economy. That's what we did during the pandemic recession.

Modern Monetary Theory basically says don't worry, that much, about deficit spending since it can be funded by creating new money. Don't worry too much during a recession at least. Maybe start worrying during inflationary times.

I know I'm probably simplifying it too much, but that's a glance at part of the concept of Modern Monetary Theory, as I understand it.

If we use deficit spending to stimulate the economy during recessions, maybe we could use carbon taxes to keep the price of fossil fuels high enough so it doesn't keep undercutting alternative energy. We could, maybe stabilize that highly volatile price at least.

One of several problems in dealing with climate change

A problem in dealing with climate change is that people approach politics as a means of evening the score with the question of "what are they going to do for us."

Instead, it seems like the approach to politics should be, "how can we all solve these problems?"

Climate change summits seem to do little more than ring alarm bells

Climate summits and debate over goals set may not have done much good. Actually achieving the goals is a more important step.

Much of the global warming that has taken place since the industrial revolution has occured since the first summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992. That past 29 years has seen more population and much more prosperity than before.

People look at how much global warming has happened since the industrial revolution and it doesn't look like that much over that many years, but they fail to see that much of the warming happened in those last 29 years. The problem is accelerating as population and prosperity continues to grow.

Climate change does need to be addressed. Maybe this conference will ring the alarm so loud that people will take action at the local levels, but seems like alarm bells is mostly what these conferences provide. Back home, where the rubber hits the road, is what matters. Literally, the rubber hits the road as automobile transportation is a big factor.

Here in the US, if we go back to Republican majorities, it will look like there is no political will to do much about this problem.

Democrat's hypocrisy dealing with climate change is easier to understand than Republican's total blocking of any attempts to address it.

Republicans seem to block any attempt to deal with climate change. One wonders if they don't care about future generations? Either that, or they don't believe the science. The science of climate change is getting more convincing each day.

What's wrong with Republicans? I'd like to ask if someone like Mitch McConnell thinks anything needs to be done about climate change?

I can better understand the seemingly hypocritical actions of liberals and Democrats when it comes to talking a good line about climate change, but still driving cars, complaining about rising gas prices and so forth. In a way, that's more understandable.

The carbon intensive American way of life has become so alluring and convenient that it is hard to change. The business models, for new ways of doing things, are not secure. One's survival and one's family's success often depends on playing the game of life the way it's been played for the past few decades.

In some ways, that problem is more understandable than what seems like the absolute blocking of any attempt to address climate change by Republicans.

Yes, maybe the second infrastructure bill isn't the best way to deal with this issue, but Republicans don't seem to offer ANY solutions to the climate change problem which I am pretty sure we are going to have to deal with; one way or another.