Plowing not Drilling

Discussion in 'Energy' started by midcan5, Aug 14, 2008.

  1. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,794
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,306
    Commodity prices are rising: food, heating, and transportation costs affect all Americans and have global impact. Energy cost is considered by most the major cause, so in a effort to resolve these issues with a single policy and process, 'Plowing' is the answer. Plowing will render off shore drilling unnecessary. Plowing will allow us to rebuild our infrastructure in a less wasteful way and put America back to work.

    Plowing is a solution everyone can agree on as it is obvious and transparent. Urban and suburban sprawl have contributed to a loss of farm land and forest. The cause is, well us, not all of us. (I have always used public transportation or a bicycle.) And there is no need to even debate global warming as Plowing alone will help our environment survive far into the future.

    What we propose is plowing over houses that are too large and too far from public transportation. Houses that have taken over land once farmed and forests that create byproducts that keep our planet healthy. Exceptions of course would be functional houses: farm homes and barns, worker quarters, and some recreational homes provided they are clustered near the recreational location.

    Once plowed the land could then be returned to farming, reducing energy needs, and providing healthy work and fresh food for the locality near the farms. Lots will be raffled off to those willing to engage in this work. Certain areas will be left as forest. Short trips to market would save an incredible amount of energy. And with food prices reduced locally, mega-farms could feed the world cheaply. Better health will be another plus.

    Transportation systems would be created similar to the Paris or the Washington Metro, in a hub spoke formation. Taxes would be levied on citizens based on distance from a Metro station. Ruining our world requires cost and the wasteful need to pay those costs. Any development that extends too far will require a consensus vote by the local people. People using energy cause a situation that only leads to more need and no sensible equilibrium of resources. Growth will be in doing the green thing and not the easy thing.

    The work involved in plowing the houses and returning the land to farming and forests would create numerous job opportunities as housing pieces are recycled to manufacturing campuses at a spoke of the transportation hub. Recycling of these many materials will reduce their costs.

    The housing and manufacturing industries would blossom again as we created homes that are friendly, livable, and people can walk to the corner store. Squares and parks would be required. Plus you can hop on the rail to the city for its many amenities. Homes would be similar to original city row or townhouse designs with more space for people and vehicles and privacy yards. Leaving more space would create work opportunities (customers would be nearby) and a friendlier community.

    Excessive non-perishable material, stone in particular, from the plowed homes would be shipped by rail to fill in mines and other places where our destruction of the earth is too obvious. Recycling of these materials as we build smaller more efficient homes and communities would be an additional industrial base. Emphasis would be on natural products as opposed to created products that eventually end up in landfills.

    Tax structure would be modified so the wasteful in our society, with large houses, those with too many cars, who live far from work, would pay extra taxes. This only seems fair if we want a nice place for our grandchildren to live.

    Well folks are you with me, it going to be a long trip, but FDR did it, let's get started.


    Footnote: Areas that posses these qualities exist now. Transportation, see the Washington Metro, or any big city subway system. Disney world's monorail is a good model. Princeton New Jersey is an example of a place that maintains it open spaces and its quaint city. Certain shore area have the housing examples and the proximity to neighbors creates a friendly atmosphere. Pennsylvania has a train stop with parking areas that is a preliminary example of the transport hub to the city model. No more bowling alone. It will take time but we can do it, we can save our earth and a child one hundred years from now will still marvel at wilderness and a sea horizon that stretches forever.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,993
    Is this your own words? If not provide a source, a link or credit the actual writer. You have any actual thoughts of your own, by the way?

    As to plowing? Gonna go back to mules? Those vehicles farmers use are VERY fuel intensive. And they need quite a few of them, trucks included. So much for SAVING fuel.

    Now I do agree we need to get back to farming in a big way, but claiming that will solve an energy problem is idiotic as hell. We also need to STOP using corn to make ethanol. Food prices are up because of THAT also.
     
  3. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,794
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,306
    LOL - you give me too little credit. Yes, my words.
     
  4. thrimironaxe
    Offline

    thrimironaxe Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    66
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7
    Outdoors nuts pretending to be environmentalists are probably as guilty of the rape of the natural world as the far right, as this head-in-the-burrow genius makes clear. Thinking like this led to the cultural revolution in China and to the killing of 2 million people in Cambodia. The mentality is "my lifestyle is perfect, so I am going to force everyone to live just like me." Everybody back to the land was Pol Pot's big idea too. Nice going.

    If we can find our way back from Oz to the real world, we can start to look for practical solutions. The good news is that climate change has greatly simplified the environmental equation. The consequences of significant global warming so outsize every other environmental sin of our species that we can effectively consider this the only real environmental issue, at least in the medium term. No single solution will do, so I basically favor all of them.

    I heat my small, well insulated house 100% with firewood
    I support reasonable infrastructure so that I can safely bike my 10mile work commute
    I support a drastic increase in nuclear power, to offset coal power
    I support eliminating the ban on imported ethanol. Corn based ethanol is both thermodynamically and economically nonsense (EROI of close to unity). We need to import cheap Brazilian cane based ethanol (EROI of 10 or so).

    As for landfills, they are a great idea ... and I never recycle plastic. Why not? I think it is certain that every drop of oil and every puff of natural gas will be produced eventually, no matter what I do. This stuff has two possible ends: burn for energy or transform into products. Every plastic bag in a landfill is a few onzes less of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Works for me.
     
  5. thrimironaxe
    Offline

    thrimironaxe Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    66
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7
    Amid all the nonsense, I almost missed this. Want to persuade people to behave well? Plowing under houses is not the way to do it ... tax the living daylights out of the idiots is.

    I was going to install a solar electric system on my rooftop, but two things dissuaded me:

    1) My roof faces E, which reduces efficiency by about 30% relative to a S facing roof.
    2) The system would have increased the value of my property ... and consequently increased my property tax.

    #2 is a the way taxes are currently handled in this country. My small, energy efficient Honda civic also has to pay a "tax" since it is subject to fuel efficiency standards ... but two houses up my cross street is a guy with TWO (2) HUMMER MILITARY VEHICLES ... he pays no such tax, because trucks are exempt from fuel efficiency standards.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    I don't think this is a plan that is going to work.

    Certainly it's not one we could implement quickly or cheaply, either.
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I thought extortion was the American way of getting everyone to behave properly.
     
  8. thrimironaxe
    Offline

    thrimironaxe Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    66
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7
    No, not so. The current paradigm is to regulate via agencies/bureaucrats/inspectors. The tax on fuel in America, for example, pays for about 80% of the upkeep of federal roads, and is not designed to prevent people from buying hummers. European nations tax fuel by 4 or 5 dollars per gallon (as opposed to under 25 cents in the US).

    The only exception in cigarettes, which are taxed specifically to prevent people from picking up the habit.

    Smoking has been in decline in the United States since that tax was put in place. Such policies work very well.
     
  9. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,794
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,306

    The replies always make me laugh. Humor is what we need. Yes, not easy, but suppose we moved in that direction without mass murder as Thrimironaxe jumps to in his/her limited imagination.

    We were in France a few years ago it occurred to me today that they seem to be working toward something like this, it probably happened naturally. In this country the individual rules and destroying the earth is Ok. The interstate road system made travel easy but it sure screwed up the nation. It made us into oil junkies.

    Without an imaginative realistic plan to solve these issues mine still holds. I do see a big problem with cars though, as they provide an enormous job and manufacturing infrastructure and their care and feeding can't be outsourced.
     
  10. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    I'll give you credit. If you really believe that you're fucking moron. Do you understand the concept of freedom at all?
     

Share This Page