This past Thursday I had to get a cable box from Comcast so we can watch Chinese programs when Cindy’s parents come in a couple of weeks. The closest Comcast office is located in North Natomas near the Walmart on Truxel Road. Travel time by car is about 40 minutes. Travel time by bike is about 2 hours. I gave up my car on 8/11/09 so that means bike, walk or crawl. Fortunately the bike trail goes all the way to Truxel . I had originally thought about going up Northgate but Northgate is bumpy and the road is narrow. Truxel is wider and more pleasant to ride on. I slung on my backpack to carry the cable box and gatorade in the bike bottle holder and off I went. Departure time was 10:07 AM, and not too hot. By the time I made it to Cal Expo, I was pretty thirsty and the gatorade was almost gone. Decided to make a pitstop at the 99 cent store on Northgate and El Camino. A couple that looked kind of trashy was arguing in front of the entrance. Now this area is traditionally quite Hispanic. There is a Pupusa place right next to the 99 cent store where I had a torta de pollo a few months back and that was about as greasy as it gets. I practically emptied an entire napkin holder eating it while a 2 year old boy watched me with interest. But that was then and I wasn’t in the mood for greasy. There was something different about the area but I hadn’t put my finger on it yet. I loaded up on some iced tea and an energy drink just in case and went back to my bike where I had tied my backpack up. I usually try and avoid taking my backpack into the store. I had left my sun block in the main pocket and when opened it up, the tube had apparently opened up somehow on the trip over and half a tube of sun block was plastered all over the inside. What a mess! I didn’t have any napkins this time so I figured I would clean it up after picking up the cable box. I looked around as I was unlocking the bike and noticed something there was something different about South Natomas that I hadn’t noticed before. Yes, it is an area that is kind of rough around the edges but there was definitely something going on. I glanced around and saw an Indian family parking their car right in front of me. I also heard some Indian music playing from a stereo not far away. This area that was once solidly Hispanic was becoming East Indian. My hunch was confirmed when I passed by a restaurant that was formerly a Taqueria and had now become a small Fijian market. Well, that’s interesting.
See, this is the type of info that you might miss driving in a car. But I hadn't missed anything. Just goes to show you that neighborhoods, like people are dynamic, living entities that are constantly changing. Okay, enough of the philosophy. Time to get a move on. I was now heading west down El Camino and then right on Truxel. Going over any freeway on a bike can be risky and the Truxel/I-80 interchange is no exception. The safe way is to ride opposite traffic on the sidewalk and then all the cars can see you when they turn. After making it over the freeway I passed Walmart and then continued a short distance on the other side. Destination address was 3890 Truxel Road. I passed by the address without realizing it and just as I was about to cross another small intersection, a woman driving a small Nissan Sentra cut me off as she turned in front of me. No signaling, no slowing down nothing. She missed me by about 1 foot. Fortunately, I saw her quickly enough to take evasive measures. This is why I avoid riding at all on the street. I really don’t care if it is illegal. I stopped off at a McDonalds to take a piss and hopped on my bike to backtrack a short distance. The Comcast store is tucked away in a small shopping mall.
Finally, after about 2 hours of riding, I had arrived at my destination. I went inside and a woman standing next to a terminal asked me if I was adding service or picking up equipment. I answered yes to both questions and she offered to assist. Okay, fine. She started entering some info and asked what I was ordering. I mentioned the Chinese CCTV-4 and Zhong-Tian package and that must have really thrown her for a loop. She went into the back and came out and then motioned me over to another employee on the other side of the store. Okay, fine. I basically went through the entire process from the beginning and once again, when we got to the point where she asked what service I wanted and she started to type something on her workstation and then finally, got up and headed into the back. After a few moments, she came out with someone who I guessed was a supervisor. This woman was the only one who knew what to do and after a few minutes, she said she was going to get my cable box and would return in a minute. I looked over at someone who was in the process of returning a mammoth sized cable box and I asked if my box was going to be that big. She said not to worry and came out with a small sized box, just the right size to fit inside my backpack. My visit to Comcast was over but I was hungry and it was a long, hot ride back to Gold River. I was pleasantly surprised to see a small Indian fast food place. II ordered a 3 item special with nan bread. Mmmm, that was good. The nan bread was fresh and the food had just the right amount of spice to make the experience really enjoyable.
After lunch, it was time to go home. What a ride. Going back is always more unpleasant because my butt was already sore from sitting so long on the way over. In addition, it was about 1:30 PM and the heat was on. I decided to take it slow and steady and made it all the way to Ancil Hoffman park for my first pitstop. It is approximately mile 13.5 from the intersection of Northgate and the bike trail. I was sweating but the wait was worth it. There is a really powerful drinking fountain that spurts water almost 4 feet high. I soaked my whole head in it for a few minutes. Ahh, that was refreshing. After about 3 minutes it was time to continue. I merged onto the bike trail to go over the Ancil Hoffman bridge right behind the arm rider. Who is the arm rider? He is someone who I draw inspiration from every time I see him which is not that frequently. He has a specially made bicycle that allows him to pedal with his arms with his legs in front. That’s right. Just his arms. He is obviously disabled because his legs look thin. But he can power up hills as fast as most of the riders I see on the trail and maintain a steady pace for miles.After another 45 minutes, I finally made it home. I was pretty tired and took a little siesta.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Letter to Dan Lungren
Dear Congressman Lungren:
I hope you can keep an open mind as I discuss with you the importance and benefits of a carbon tax. I know you may be ideologically opposed to this concept, but please hear me out on this. Fossil fuels, especially oil were instrumental in building the United States into a superpower. We have a lot to thank for the discovery of petroleum and the enormous positive changes brought to our civilization by the industrial revolution. During the middle of the twentieth century as our infrastructure was being built around oil, only a small group of scientists were aware of the toxicity of oil. As our collective knowledge of the effects of burning fossil fuels has grown over the past 60 years, the costs have grown as well. The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and ongoing oil accidents occurring around the world, most recently in Dalian, China illustrate the risks involved in the extraction, refining, delivery and combustion of oil. There is no credible argument that can refute the reality that damage to the environment during the production, delivery and burning of oil represents a cost. Whether we are talking about smog alerts in Los Angeles, increased asthma cases in large cities, ocean dead zones, acid rain, fallout from global climate change, or increased lung cancer rates, we have been paying a price for our decision over a hundred years ago to exploit this resource. Because these costs are so difficult to quantify, we have allowed ourselves to wait until incidents occur before we commit to paying for these costs. In most cases, the general public has footed the tab for these large, spread out environmental damage consequences. If you can see the environment as a cost of production like any other cost such as labor, capital and material, what entity besides the company involved in the production of its product should be responsible for these costs? The obvious answer of course, is that a company operating in a free market economy, should not depend on anyone else for its costs of production. Yet, that is what has been happening on a very large scale for the last 100 years. The fossil fuel industry has, without any fanfare, transferred most of these costs onto the general public, violating some of the most important principles of free enterprise systems - depending on the public to subsidize your business and not maintaining a level playing field for all the market players. Picking up the tab for all of these costs represents a massive subsidy of the fossil fuel industry and has kept the price of oil artificially low relative to its true cost. Is that fair? Yes, I agree these costs are extremely difficult to quantify. But to leave them out is an affront to our free market economy. The purpose of implementing a carbon tax is to finally begin to quantify the cost of environmental damage as a legitimate cost of production, fully integrating these costs into the Profit and Loss statements of fossil fuel companies and leveling the playing field for other energy producers. The other related issue to a carbon tax is jobs. There is a common perception that any type of clean energy legislation would adversely affect our economy and prevent job growth. I beg to differ and I will explain to you why. Our dependence on foreign sources for oil is an issue of national security.
Unfortunately, due to our consumption patterns, there is not enough oil reserves in the U.S., even fully exploited to quench our appetite. In an atmosphere of rapidly rising world demand, oil producing countries cannot keep up with this demand. If you read the Wall Street Journal the other day, a milestone was reached when it was announced that China has now surpassed the United States as the largest consumer of energy. The cost of securing oil from countries that are sometimes openly hostile to our way of life and the risk that some of our money going overseas for oil is finding its ways into the waiting pockets of terrorists is unsettling at the very least. I propose to you that our dependence on oil is the root cause of our precarious economy. Unless we begin to transform our infrastructure and wean ourselves away from oil, the risks will only increase. The United States oil production peaked in 1970 and there are scientists predicting peak oil within the next 10 years. The economic consequences of terminal decline are potentially disastrous. Should we sit this out and wait to see what happens or purchase an insurance policy in the form of clean energy technology to inoculate ourselves from this inevitable result?
Sincerely,
David Brotman
I hope you can keep an open mind as I discuss with you the importance and benefits of a carbon tax. I know you may be ideologically opposed to this concept, but please hear me out on this. Fossil fuels, especially oil were instrumental in building the United States into a superpower. We have a lot to thank for the discovery of petroleum and the enormous positive changes brought to our civilization by the industrial revolution. During the middle of the twentieth century as our infrastructure was being built around oil, only a small group of scientists were aware of the toxicity of oil. As our collective knowledge of the effects of burning fossil fuels has grown over the past 60 years, the costs have grown as well. The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and ongoing oil accidents occurring around the world, most recently in Dalian, China illustrate the risks involved in the extraction, refining, delivery and combustion of oil. There is no credible argument that can refute the reality that damage to the environment during the production, delivery and burning of oil represents a cost. Whether we are talking about smog alerts in Los Angeles, increased asthma cases in large cities, ocean dead zones, acid rain, fallout from global climate change, or increased lung cancer rates, we have been paying a price for our decision over a hundred years ago to exploit this resource. Because these costs are so difficult to quantify, we have allowed ourselves to wait until incidents occur before we commit to paying for these costs. In most cases, the general public has footed the tab for these large, spread out environmental damage consequences. If you can see the environment as a cost of production like any other cost such as labor, capital and material, what entity besides the company involved in the production of its product should be responsible for these costs? The obvious answer of course, is that a company operating in a free market economy, should not depend on anyone else for its costs of production. Yet, that is what has been happening on a very large scale for the last 100 years. The fossil fuel industry has, without any fanfare, transferred most of these costs onto the general public, violating some of the most important principles of free enterprise systems - depending on the public to subsidize your business and not maintaining a level playing field for all the market players. Picking up the tab for all of these costs represents a massive subsidy of the fossil fuel industry and has kept the price of oil artificially low relative to its true cost. Is that fair? Yes, I agree these costs are extremely difficult to quantify. But to leave them out is an affront to our free market economy. The purpose of implementing a carbon tax is to finally begin to quantify the cost of environmental damage as a legitimate cost of production, fully integrating these costs into the Profit and Loss statements of fossil fuel companies and leveling the playing field for other energy producers. The other related issue to a carbon tax is jobs. There is a common perception that any type of clean energy legislation would adversely affect our economy and prevent job growth. I beg to differ and I will explain to you why. Our dependence on foreign sources for oil is an issue of national security.
Unfortunately, due to our consumption patterns, there is not enough oil reserves in the U.S., even fully exploited to quench our appetite. In an atmosphere of rapidly rising world demand, oil producing countries cannot keep up with this demand. If you read the Wall Street Journal the other day, a milestone was reached when it was announced that China has now surpassed the United States as the largest consumer of energy. The cost of securing oil from countries that are sometimes openly hostile to our way of life and the risk that some of our money going overseas for oil is finding its ways into the waiting pockets of terrorists is unsettling at the very least. I propose to you that our dependence on oil is the root cause of our precarious economy. Unless we begin to transform our infrastructure and wean ourselves away from oil, the risks will only increase. The United States oil production peaked in 1970 and there are scientists predicting peak oil within the next 10 years. The economic consequences of terminal decline are potentially disastrous. Should we sit this out and wait to see what happens or purchase an insurance policy in the form of clean energy technology to inoculate ourselves from this inevitable result?
Sincerely,
David Brotman
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Passing Meaningful Climate Change Legislation
In a recent editorial, Thomas Friedman asked the question: Are there 7 Republicans who can put their country first and vote for meaningful climate change legislation?
The answer is a qualified no. The only sliver of hope Democrats have in implementing a carbon tax is to frame the issue as a model of free enterprise. In a market economy, players operate on a level playing field. No one player has an unfair advantage coming into the market. The damage to the environment and our health resulting from the production or use of a fossil fuel represents a cost. Unlike hard costs such as rent, office supplies and labor, environmental costs are difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the industrial revolution up through today, the general public has been picking up the tab for these costs. This shifting of cost to the public represents a massive subsidy to the oil, coal and gas industry which explains why fossil fuels remain relatively cheap in comparison to renewable energy. A carbon tax represents the first attempt in a hundred years to quantify the environmental costs of fossil fuel production. It finally integrates a cost that has been conspicuously missing from the P and L statements of companies that have profited enormously from its absence. A carbon tax will finally level the playing field in the market, inoculate our economy from volatile price swings as we approach peak oil and affirm our commitment to our children.
The answer is a qualified no. The only sliver of hope Democrats have in implementing a carbon tax is to frame the issue as a model of free enterprise. In a market economy, players operate on a level playing field. No one player has an unfair advantage coming into the market. The damage to the environment and our health resulting from the production or use of a fossil fuel represents a cost. Unlike hard costs such as rent, office supplies and labor, environmental costs are difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the industrial revolution up through today, the general public has been picking up the tab for these costs. This shifting of cost to the public represents a massive subsidy to the oil, coal and gas industry which explains why fossil fuels remain relatively cheap in comparison to renewable energy. A carbon tax represents the first attempt in a hundred years to quantify the environmental costs of fossil fuel production. It finally integrates a cost that has been conspicuously missing from the P and L statements of companies that have profited enormously from its absence. A carbon tax will finally level the playing field in the market, inoculate our economy from volatile price swings as we approach peak oil and affirm our commitment to our children.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Meeting with Elizabeth Kim at Alyson Huber's Office
Today I rode my bike to Rancho Cordova City Hall to meet with Elizabeth Kim, a member of Alyson Huber’s staff. Alysson Huber is the assemblywoman representing the 10th assembly district of California. The purpose of our meeting was to discuss the benefits of a carbon tax. The meeting went really well and I strongly believe that Elizabeth got the concept which is fairly straightforward. When a company produces a product, it is concerned about revenues and expenses. Only measurable costs are included in a P and L statement. Up until now, energy companies such as oil, coal and gas have been able to make enormous profits off of their energy products because they have been able to shift a significant portion of those costs onto the general public. What does this mean? Let’s take a look at coal for example. In strip mining, entire mountains are blown up and removed and heavy machinery is moved in to extract the coal. Once the coal is processed it is used to power utilities and other industries. When the coal is burned, Co2 is released into the air. When the Co2 reacts with H2o, carbonic acid is produced which is more commonly referred to as acid rain. When lakes and rivers become acidic, the fish and other life in the lake die off as oxygen becomes depleted. In addition, Co2 traps heat from the sun which in turn warms the atmosphere, aka global warming. Other chemicals are also released into the air during the burning of coal and find their way into our lungs.Each of these damaging effects either on the environment or our health represent a significant cost. The problem is that quantifying these costs is very difficult. In the absence of easily measurable costs, the fossil fuel industry can profit handsomely by avoiding responsibility and effectively shifting all of these costs onto the general public. This shifting of costs represents a massive subsidy of the fossil fuel industry. In effect, we are paying for part of the production costs of these energy sources. The central premise of my argument for a carbon tax is this: The environment represents a cost of doing business just like any other cost. If you rent a storage space, you have to pay for it. If you rent labor, you have to pay for it. And if you damage the environment during the production of your product, you alone should be responsible for it, not the public. That is what free enterprise is about. A carbon tax is the most effective way of quantifying the cost of "damaging" the environment. It is easy to implement, easy to monitor and encourages a shift away from fossil fuels without compromising jobs. In any case, Elizabeth was so impressed with my ideas, she invited me to meet with Assemblywoman Huber at the state capitol sometime in the future. We agreed that I would call her next week to find out Huber’s reaction to my ideas.
Meeting with Elizabeth Kim at Alyson Huber's Office
Today I rode my bike to Rancho Cordova City Hall to meet with Elizabeth Kim, a member of Alyson Huber’s staff. Alysson Huber is the assemblywoman representing the 10th assembly district of California. The purpose of our meeting was to discuss the benefits of a carbon tax. The meeting went really well and I strongly believe that Elizabeth got the concept which is fairly straightforward. When a company produces a product, it is concerned about revenues and expenses. Only measurable costs are included in a P and L statement. Up until now, energy companies such as oil, coal and gas have been able to make enormous profits off of their energy products because they have been able to shift a significant portion of those costs onto the general public. What does this mean? Let’s take a look at coal for example. In strip mining, entire mountains are blown up and removed and heavy machinery is moved in to extract the coal. Once the coal is processed it is used to power utilities and other industries. When the coal is burned, Co2 is released into the air. When the Co2 reacts with H2o, carbonic acid is produced which is more commonly referred to as acid rain. When lakes and rivers become acidic, the fish and other life in the lake die off as oxygen becomes depleted. In addition, Co2 traps heat from the sun which in turn warms the atmosphere, aka global warming. Other chemicals are also released into the air during the burning of coal and find their way into our lungs.Each of these damaging effects either on the environment or our health represent a significant cost. The problem is that quantifying these costs is very difficult. In the absence of easily measurable costs, the fossil fuel industry can profit handsomely by avoiding responsibility and effectively shifting all of these costs onto the general public. This shifting of costs represents a massive subsidy of the fossil fuel industry. In effect, we are paying for part of the production costs of these energy sources. The central premise of my argument for a carbon tax is this: The environment represents a cost of doing business just like any other cost. If you rent a storage space, you have to pay for it. If you rent labor, you have to pay for it. And if you damage the environment during the production of your product, you alone should be responsible for it, not the public. That is what free enterprise is about. A carbon tax is the most effective way of quantifying the cost of "damaging" the environment. It is easy to implement, easy to monitor and encourages a shift away from fossil fuels without compromising jobs. In any case, Elizabeth was so impressed with my ideas, she invited me to meet with Assemblywoman Huber at the state capitol sometime in the future. We agreed that I would call her next week to find out Huber’s reaction to my ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)