A letter in the May 7 (Woodstock) Vermont Standard expressed the opinion that the rich are unduly taxed to support the poor. I will ignore the absurd accusations implying that the poor have chosen to be so and that even the obscenely rich are justly rewarded for uniquely hard work and wise decisions. And I will ignore the other question raised of whether sharing the risk of what afflicts all of us equally, such as ill health, is not the mark of a civilized society.
The writer cited Congressional Budget Office figures showing that 39% of federal income tax is paid by the top 1% of household incomes, 61% by the top 5%, and 99% by the top 40%.
Actually, the CBO report (April 2009) says that (in 2006) the top 1% paid only 28% of all federal (not just income) taxes, the top 5% paid 45%, and the top 40% paid 86%.
This may still appear to be unfair to those who think the poor should be soaked as much as those who can more easily pay, because the top 1% represented only 20% of all household income (ignoring the fact that they owned about 34% of all wealth and 42% of all financial wealth), the top 5% 32%, the top 40% 75%.
But another way to look at it is how those income proportions change after taxation. After taxes, the top 1% were down from 20% to 16% of all income, the top 5% from 32% to 28%, and the top 40% from 75% to 72%. Meanwhile, the share of the bottom 20% rose from 4% to 5% and the bottom 60% from 25% to 28%.
That's hardly a turning of the tables.
In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau data, the real turning of the tables appears to have occurred 30 years ago. From 1947 to 1979, family incomes rose by nearly equal percentages across quintiles: an average of 108%, ranging from 99% to 116%. But from 1979 to 2005, the family income of the bottom 20% declined 1%, that of the middle 20% increased 25%, and that of the top 5% increased 81%.
Progressive taxation helped the bottom 20% somewhat, so that their after-tax income rose 6% from 1979 to 2005, according to the CBO. But the middle 20% lost out, with their after-tax income increasing 21% compared with the pretax increase of 25%. And belying the claim that the rich support their less fortunate compatriots, the top 5% saw their after-tax income rise by 106%, compared with the pretax increase of 81%. The average pretax income of the top 0.01% rose by 484%, while their after-tax income rose by 742%.
It appears that the middle class is paying more than their fair share and the rich less and less towards keeping our country whole.
human rights, Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
May 8, 2009
CO2 emissions of countries with the most wind energy
Denmark, Spain, and Germany have the most wind energy capacity as a proportion of total electricity generation.
Denmark's wind plant was built from 1996 to 2003. Spain has built steadily since 2000, and Germany since 1998.
According to data from the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, in the International Energy Annual 2006, with data updated in December 2008 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls):
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Denmark's wind plant was built from 1996 to 2003. Spain has built steadily since 2000, and Germany since 1998.
According to data from the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, in the International Energy Annual 2006, with data updated in December 2008 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls):
- Denmark's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions decreased 14.9% from 1996 to 2003. The trend of Denmark's emissions is hard to follow, however, because year-to-year energy imports vary a great deal. CO2 emissions were 57.41 million metric tons in 1990, 72.07 in 1996, 75.07 in 1997, 53.36 in 2002, 62.02 in 2003, 51.93 in 2005 (a 16.3% decrease since 2003 with no new wind capacity), and 59.13 in 2006.
- Spain's CO2 emissions increased 14.0% from 2000 to 2006, 57.3% since 1990.
- Germany's CO2 emissions decreased only 1.4% from 1998 to 2006. From 1990 to 1998 (before large-scale wind installation), they decreased 11.9%.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
May 6, 2009
Wind: The next battlefront
Janice Harvey, president of the New Brunswick Green Party, writes in today's Telegraph-Journal:
It’s as predictable as the wind. Now that big utilities and corporations have grabbed hold of wind energy, the controversies begin.
The first complaints were of the visual impact of wind farms on their landscapes and waterscapes. Now a new concern is emerging. People who live near wind turbines are complaining of health problems such as sleep disorders, migraines, tinnitus, equilibrium problems, depression and anxiety attacks, and in children, learning disabilities. A 2008 California study and a 2007 British study have dubbed the “wind turbine syndrome,” an effect on the inner ear by low energy noise from the turbines. There may also be an effect from air pressure changes from the turning turbines.
I first heard of this last year. A CBC radio documentary featured a family in southwestern Nova Scotia driven out of their home by the new wind installation nearby. Their story demonstrated, as do all the similar stories that are cropping up around the world, that we have learned nothing from the past century of hyper-industrialization. Regardless of technology or intention, scale and intensity matter. Indeed, it has been the vast scale and intensity of industrialization that has pushed the impact of economic development way beyond any reasonable thresholds of ecological and human tolerance. (For an eye-opening read on this topic, check out J. N. McNeill’s Something New under the Sun: An Environmental History of the 20th Century).
In the wind farm case, scale and intensity imply squeezing as much energy as possible out of each unit, and locating as many units on as large a portion of the landscape as possible. This results in mind-boggling dimensions for both individual turbines and wind farms.
The third leg of this stool is the pervasive pro-development bias within regulatory agencies, which ultimately expresses itself as a dismissive attitude towards public concerns. I’ve heard the story of the Nova Scotia family a thousand times. They are suffering real health problems as recounted above. The company’s response? They followed all the rules; no studies have proven a direct link between wind turbines and health effects; their own noise monitoring revealed levels below probable health effects. The bureaucrats echo the company line: the environmental impact assessment was done, no effects predicted. Therefore, there must be no effects. The family must be imagining their symptoms or, if they had them, they couldn’t possibly be connected to the new kid on the block — the wind turbine.
This contemptuous attitude is being repeated all over the world where these mega-wind farms are being built. The technology may have changed, but the business of doing business is the same. The companies circle the wagons and the government rides shotgun.
It doesn’t have to be that way. All governments, including Canada’s, present at the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil endorsed the precautionary principle as an alternative to the conventional risk-based approach to environmental management. The precautionary approach states that the lack of scientific proof is not a justification for inaction in protecting against potential harm. Using this approach, the government simply needs to establish siting requirements for wind farms that assume there is a potential for health effects associated with the large-scale interference with air currents. These requirements would establish a mandatory setback from any dwelling based on the growing body of evidence of health impacts and incorporating a good margin of error. Such setback would be adjusted as more research is done.
There should also be a limit on the number of hectares that can be covered in any one location. If humans are being affected by changes in air pressure and noise, so are animals. The larger the wind farm footprint, the more habitat is being removed for some species.
In this current economic system, being precautionary would make wind farms “uneconomic.” We need a new business model in which people and the ecosystems on which all life depend come first. No more cost-benefit analyses in which economic benefits to some come at the expense of others. No more pollution- and illness-based profits. If governments need to offset the extra cost of truly green power while the economy is transformed from an exploitative to a protective model, so be it.
Wind developers and regulatory agencies have a choice. Either take these emerging issues seriously now and change the way the industry develops, or face inevitable and justified hostility at every turn. Wind developments need to be appropriately scaled and located well away from human habitation.
Everything has limits, even renewable energy developments. Until we learn that lesson, we will continue to make big mistakes.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
It’s as predictable as the wind. Now that big utilities and corporations have grabbed hold of wind energy, the controversies begin.
The first complaints were of the visual impact of wind farms on their landscapes and waterscapes. Now a new concern is emerging. People who live near wind turbines are complaining of health problems such as sleep disorders, migraines, tinnitus, equilibrium problems, depression and anxiety attacks, and in children, learning disabilities. A 2008 California study and a 2007 British study have dubbed the “wind turbine syndrome,” an effect on the inner ear by low energy noise from the turbines. There may also be an effect from air pressure changes from the turning turbines.
I first heard of this last year. A CBC radio documentary featured a family in southwestern Nova Scotia driven out of their home by the new wind installation nearby. Their story demonstrated, as do all the similar stories that are cropping up around the world, that we have learned nothing from the past century of hyper-industrialization. Regardless of technology or intention, scale and intensity matter. Indeed, it has been the vast scale and intensity of industrialization that has pushed the impact of economic development way beyond any reasonable thresholds of ecological and human tolerance. (For an eye-opening read on this topic, check out J. N. McNeill’s Something New under the Sun: An Environmental History of the 20th Century).
In the wind farm case, scale and intensity imply squeezing as much energy as possible out of each unit, and locating as many units on as large a portion of the landscape as possible. This results in mind-boggling dimensions for both individual turbines and wind farms.
The third leg of this stool is the pervasive pro-development bias within regulatory agencies, which ultimately expresses itself as a dismissive attitude towards public concerns. I’ve heard the story of the Nova Scotia family a thousand times. They are suffering real health problems as recounted above. The company’s response? They followed all the rules; no studies have proven a direct link between wind turbines and health effects; their own noise monitoring revealed levels below probable health effects. The bureaucrats echo the company line: the environmental impact assessment was done, no effects predicted. Therefore, there must be no effects. The family must be imagining their symptoms or, if they had them, they couldn’t possibly be connected to the new kid on the block — the wind turbine.
This contemptuous attitude is being repeated all over the world where these mega-wind farms are being built. The technology may have changed, but the business of doing business is the same. The companies circle the wagons and the government rides shotgun.
It doesn’t have to be that way. All governments, including Canada’s, present at the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil endorsed the precautionary principle as an alternative to the conventional risk-based approach to environmental management. The precautionary approach states that the lack of scientific proof is not a justification for inaction in protecting against potential harm. Using this approach, the government simply needs to establish siting requirements for wind farms that assume there is a potential for health effects associated with the large-scale interference with air currents. These requirements would establish a mandatory setback from any dwelling based on the growing body of evidence of health impacts and incorporating a good margin of error. Such setback would be adjusted as more research is done.
There should also be a limit on the number of hectares that can be covered in any one location. If humans are being affected by changes in air pressure and noise, so are animals. The larger the wind farm footprint, the more habitat is being removed for some species.
In this current economic system, being precautionary would make wind farms “uneconomic.” We need a new business model in which people and the ecosystems on which all life depend come first. No more cost-benefit analyses in which economic benefits to some come at the expense of others. No more pollution- and illness-based profits. If governments need to offset the extra cost of truly green power while the economy is transformed from an exploitative to a protective model, so be it.
Wind developers and regulatory agencies have a choice. Either take these emerging issues seriously now and change the way the industry develops, or face inevitable and justified hostility at every turn. Wind developments need to be appropriately scaled and located well away from human habitation.
Everything has limits, even renewable energy developments. Until we learn that lesson, we will continue to make big mistakes.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
May 3, 2009
It's time to reject wind
To the Editor, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press:
If wind energy had not been prominent in the news for several years, the Free Press might not be faulted in asserting that a balance can be found between impacts and benefits from industrial wind facilities on Vermont ridgelines (editorial, Apr. 26).
But while they appear to be open to discussing impacts and presumably how best to minimize them, they ignore the fact that the benefit from -- and thus the need for -- industrial-scale wind energy remains debatable.
The Free Press pleads for energy self-sufficiency, as if Vermont were not a part of the New England grid and does not also have connectors to New York and Quebec (with the latter providing a third of our electricity). Self-sufficiency may be a laudable goal, but large-scale wind energy would make Vermont more dependent, not less, on outside sources to fill in for the intermittent, highly variable, nondispatchable, and significantly unpredictable production from wind.
Rather than face the facts about wind energy (besides its utter lack of documented benefit, its substantial environmental and health impacts are also by now well known), the Free Press resorts to name-calling.
To imply that those who have actually researched this technology "say 'no' merely because of nimbyism" or are engaged in "resistance for the sake of resistance" is not only insulting and projects an attitude that does not encourage working together. The attempt to shut out dissenting voices also reveals the emptiness of the editors' reasoning.
Vermont would no longer be a "green" state if it flouted its own protection of the ridgelines only because wind energy salesmen have convinced so many that their product is above questioning. If one or two or five arrays of giant wind turbines are allowed, when will it stop? Why? The right thing to do is to ask those questions before, not after, the damage is done.
It is hardly a sign of leadership to jump onto a juggernaut. Vermonters can lead by thinking for themselves and finally rejecting the false idol of industrial wind energy.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
If wind energy had not been prominent in the news for several years, the Free Press might not be faulted in asserting that a balance can be found between impacts and benefits from industrial wind facilities on Vermont ridgelines (editorial, Apr. 26).
But while they appear to be open to discussing impacts and presumably how best to minimize them, they ignore the fact that the benefit from -- and thus the need for -- industrial-scale wind energy remains debatable.
The Free Press pleads for energy self-sufficiency, as if Vermont were not a part of the New England grid and does not also have connectors to New York and Quebec (with the latter providing a third of our electricity). Self-sufficiency may be a laudable goal, but large-scale wind energy would make Vermont more dependent, not less, on outside sources to fill in for the intermittent, highly variable, nondispatchable, and significantly unpredictable production from wind.
Rather than face the facts about wind energy (besides its utter lack of documented benefit, its substantial environmental and health impacts are also by now well known), the Free Press resorts to name-calling.
To imply that those who have actually researched this technology "say 'no' merely because of nimbyism" or are engaged in "resistance for the sake of resistance" is not only insulting and projects an attitude that does not encourage working together. The attempt to shut out dissenting voices also reveals the emptiness of the editors' reasoning.
Vermont would no longer be a "green" state if it flouted its own protection of the ridgelines only because wind energy salesmen have convinced so many that their product is above questioning. If one or two or five arrays of giant wind turbines are allowed, when will it stop? Why? The right thing to do is to ask those questions before, not after, the damage is done.
It is hardly a sign of leadership to jump onto a juggernaut. Vermonters can lead by thinking for themselves and finally rejecting the false idol of industrial wind energy.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
April 29, 2009
Oil produces only 1% of U.S. electricity
Oil is still sometimes raised in attempts to push wind energy, as running out, making us dependent on unpleasant trade, polluting. Most people know by now that oil is not an important part of the overall electricity debate (it is significant only in some localities, especially islands, that rely on diesel generators).
Less than 2% of the oil used in the U.S. is used for electricity production, generating only 1% of our electricity.
The source for these figures is the Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy ~~
Electric Power Monthly: in 2008, gigawatt-hours:
from petroleum liquids: 31,162
from petroleum coke: 14,192
from all sources: 4,110,259
percent from petroleum: 1.10
Annual Energy Review: in 2007, million of barrels per day:
of crude oil imports: 10.02
of crude oil production: 5.10
of other net imports: 5.48
used for electric power: 0.29 (1.40%)
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Less than 2% of the oil used in the U.S. is used for electricity production, generating only 1% of our electricity.
The source for these figures is the Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy ~~
Electric Power Monthly: in 2008, gigawatt-hours:
from petroleum liquids: 31,162
from petroleum coke: 14,192
from all sources: 4,110,259
percent from petroleum: 1.10
Annual Energy Review: in 2007, million of barrels per day:
of crude oil imports: 10.02
of crude oil production: 5.10
of other net imports: 5.48
used for electric power: 0.29 (1.40%)
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
April 17, 2009
More coal for less electricity -- due to wind?
We have been informed that the current North American Windpower trade magazine includes an article reporting that the amount of electricity generated from coal dropped by 2.7% from November 2007 to November 2008, while electricity from wind increased between the same months by 42.4% (or 46.6% by my calculations: see "Net generation by other renewables" from the Energy Information Administration (EIA)).
In the big picture, however, the record installation of more than 8,000 MW of wind turbines last year increased its share of electricity generation by less than one-half percent. Coal's share went down just over two-thirds of a percent. Total electricity generation declined 1.3%.
But here's the hidden information: The EIA also reports how much coal is actually used for electricity. Although electricity from coal declined by 2.7%, coal consumed for electricity declined only 1.5%. That is, more coal was required per KWh of electricity that it generates.
Also see earlier posts: "U.S. coal use for electricity, 2002-2006" and "U.K. fossil fuel use for electricity, 2002-2006".
This appears to be evidence that the burden of wind -- an intermittent, highly variable, and nondispatchable source of energy -- introduces inefficiencies that cancel much of its theoretical benefit of reducing fossil fuel use.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
In the big picture, however, the record installation of more than 8,000 MW of wind turbines last year increased its share of electricity generation by less than one-half percent. Coal's share went down just over two-thirds of a percent. Total electricity generation declined 1.3%.
But here's the hidden information: The EIA also reports how much coal is actually used for electricity. Although electricity from coal declined by 2.7%, coal consumed for electricity declined only 1.5%. That is, more coal was required per KWh of electricity that it generates.
Also see earlier posts: "U.S. coal use for electricity, 2002-2006" and "U.K. fossil fuel use for electricity, 2002-2006".
This appears to be evidence that the burden of wind -- an intermittent, highly variable, and nondispatchable source of energy -- introduces inefficiencies that cancel much of its theoretical benefit of reducing fossil fuel use.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
April 16, 2009
The Moral Question of Dinner
Re “Humanity Even for Nonhumans,” by Nicholas D. Kristof (column, April 9):
Thank you for this inspiring and enlightening article. Animals raised for food suffer miserably.
The meat and dairy industries want to keep their operations away from the public’s discriminating eyes, but as groups like PETA and the Humane Society have shown us in their graphic and disturbing undercover investigations, factory farms are mechanized madness and slaughterhouses are torture chambers to these unfortunate and feeling beings.
The overwhelming passage in November of Proposition 2 in California, which banned tight confinement of many of the animals raised for food, is a fine example of the power of publicity to educate people about the atrocities we commit to those animals who have no voice of their own.
Laura Frisk
Encinitas, Calif., April 9, 2009
•
To the Editor:
In making the personal decision of where to place ourselves in our ethical relationship with animals, it is important to evaluate the reality of our words. If human beings were confined, mutilated and killed, would we call it “humane” if the cages were a few inches bigger, the knife sharper, the death faster? Would we say these people were slaughtered in a “people friendly” manner?
Confinement is confinement, mutilation is mutilation, and slaughter is slaughter. Animal agriculture is inherently inhumane.
Animals rescued from so-called humane farming establishments have been found in horrific condition.
Our relationship with animals should be based on respect and caring, and that begins with not eating them.
Irene Muschel
New York, April 9, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Nicholas D. Kristof’s column brought back an image of my father dropping live lobsters into boiling water. I was 4 or 5, and I cringed.
At 14, as I started making my own choices, my eating habits began to change. After time in the Marines, I veered strongly away from eating creatures, thinking of their suffering. In my 40s, I became a vegetarian because I was saving sick and injured birds, and I just couldn’t eat them and save them.
My doctor says my tremendous health and strength are due to my being a vegan. Push-ups, sit-ups, carrying 50-pound bags of bird seed — and I will be 71 in May. I still have the same six-pack stomach I had in the Marines.
Every meal, for me, is a celebration of life. That’s right, for me — but it may not be for others. Being “kind” to the animals has been great for my quality of life.
Buzz Alpert
Chicago, April 9, 2009
environment, environmentalism, animal rights, vegetarianism
Thank you for this inspiring and enlightening article. Animals raised for food suffer miserably.
The meat and dairy industries want to keep their operations away from the public’s discriminating eyes, but as groups like PETA and the Humane Society have shown us in their graphic and disturbing undercover investigations, factory farms are mechanized madness and slaughterhouses are torture chambers to these unfortunate and feeling beings.
The overwhelming passage in November of Proposition 2 in California, which banned tight confinement of many of the animals raised for food, is a fine example of the power of publicity to educate people about the atrocities we commit to those animals who have no voice of their own.
Laura Frisk
Encinitas, Calif., April 9, 2009
•
To the Editor:
In making the personal decision of where to place ourselves in our ethical relationship with animals, it is important to evaluate the reality of our words. If human beings were confined, mutilated and killed, would we call it “humane” if the cages were a few inches bigger, the knife sharper, the death faster? Would we say these people were slaughtered in a “people friendly” manner?
Confinement is confinement, mutilation is mutilation, and slaughter is slaughter. Animal agriculture is inherently inhumane.
Animals rescued from so-called humane farming establishments have been found in horrific condition.
Our relationship with animals should be based on respect and caring, and that begins with not eating them.
Irene Muschel
New York, April 9, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Nicholas D. Kristof’s column brought back an image of my father dropping live lobsters into boiling water. I was 4 or 5, and I cringed.
At 14, as I started making my own choices, my eating habits began to change. After time in the Marines, I veered strongly away from eating creatures, thinking of their suffering. In my 40s, I became a vegetarian because I was saving sick and injured birds, and I just couldn’t eat them and save them.
My doctor says my tremendous health and strength are due to my being a vegan. Push-ups, sit-ups, carrying 50-pound bags of bird seed — and I will be 71 in May. I still have the same six-pack stomach I had in the Marines.
Every meal, for me, is a celebration of life. That’s right, for me — but it may not be for others. Being “kind” to the animals has been great for my quality of life.
Buzz Alpert
Chicago, April 9, 2009
environment, environmentalism, animal rights, vegetarianism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)