The president refutes Amy's statements posted above:

http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehou.../6/IEEfmbIhC2g

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

#1, get us off of oil right away. Require the car companies to go electric now. The government still owns part of GM, for God's sakes. They owned a majority of the stock a while back. They did nothing to make GM build electric cars. There needs to be competition with the oil industry from other sources. That would cause the price to go down. The government, if it had a clue, could get America off of oil and onto electric cars and solar and wind energy. It has been dragging its feet on this for decades already. And now PBS puts its head in the sand in the face of Republican nonsense.

And #2, the price of gas is entirely caused by speculators and traders. And yet your young lady reporter says the politicians are rushing to favor oil drilling. Supply is NOT the issue; that is the fact. Don't the actual facts have any bearing on your discussion? Why not? The government if it chose could require that gas prices be charged directly by suppliers and companies, not by futures traders. Why do gamblers have the sole ability to determine gas prices, and with them, the fate of our whole economy? Who gave them this authority? Can't the government step in and stop this? Not with investigations, but with action? Or price controls? Of course it could. But you pundits take it off the table. You guys are shirking your responsibility, big time!"

Why is it always the government's job to get involved? If electric cars can be produced and sold at a price that consumers are willing to pay, then so be it. If not, then how would the government enforce this proposed requirement?

And every investigation into the evil oil trading speculators has led to the conclusion that their activity actually helps stabilize prices, by attempting to predict and time the market to buy low and sell high. The last so-called call for investigation was really just a canned response to placate constituents complaining about high gas prices and rising inflation.

Originally Posted by Vinsan'80

Why is it always the government's job to get involved? If electric cars can be produced and sold at a price that consumers are willing to pay, then so be it. If not, then how would the government enforce this proposed requirement?

Trickle-down economics is false and doesn't work. The government has spurred investment in industries of the future for centuries. It is necessary to get them off and running until they can compete on their own. That was true with railroads, cars and the space program, for example. Fossil fuel gets enormous subsidies is does not need, thanks to their Republican representatives.

I mentioned in my post that the government owned GM for a while; they certainly could have made requirements then. Now they still can set fuel standards so high that only electric cars could meet them. That is what CA proposed to do, but the industry through the Bush admin stopped this. The idea that government action can't work, is only based on the fact that industry doesn't want it to work, and stops it.

And every investigation into the evil oil trading speculators has led to the conclusion that their activity actually helps stabilize prices, by attempting to predict and time the market to buy low and sell high. The last so-called call for investigation was really just a canned response to placate constituents complaining about high gas prices and rising inflation.

Maybe so indeed. But the speculation trading system seems to be working very poorly. It causes the price to fluctuate wildly, and for prices to bear no relation to cost or demand. The investigations you speak of obviously are a ruse to miss the obvious point. There is no need for these speculators at all. They have nothing to do with real transactions. It's hard to think of anything more bogus than the idea that these gamblers are necessary and beneficial.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Trickle-down economics is false and doesn't work. The government has spurred investment in industries of the future for centuries. It is necessary to get them off and running until they can compete on their own. That was true with railroads, cars and the space program, for example. Fossil fuel gets enormous subsidies is does not need, thanks to their Republican representatives.

Aren't most of those subsidies related to alternative energy research? I know that's how GE was able to avoid income taxes for 2010. Isn't that what the greenies want to push the energy companies toward?

I mentioned in my post that the government owned GM for a while; they certainly could have made requirements then. Now they still can set fuel standards so high that only electric cars could meet them. That is what CA proposed to do, but the industry through the Bush admin stopped this. The idea that government action can't work, is only based on the fact that industry doesn't want it to work, and stops it.

Better for GM to be 100% liquidated than to be turned into another government bureaucracy.

Maybe so indeed. But the speculation trading system seems to be working very poorly. It causes the price to fluctuate wildly, and for prices to bear no relation to cost or demand. The investigations you speak of obviously are a ruse to miss the obvious point. There is no need for these speculators at all. They have nothing to do with real transactions. It's hard to think of anything more bogus than the idea that these gamblers are necessary and beneficial.

The industrial consumers of oil do in fact use speculator predictions to hedge the price of fuel; it helps them forecast their own operating cost via futures trading. Without futures trading, businesses won't know how much their energy costs will be a month or three down the road.

Originally Posted by Vinsan'80

Aren't most of those subsidies related to alternative energy research? I know that's how GE was able to avoid income taxes for 2010. Isn't that what the greenies want to push the energy companies toward?

No, huge subsidies have been in effect for a few years for oil and gas exploration. We want to push the companies toward alternative energy, and Obama has instituted some much needed funds to help new companies. But the big oil and gas companies are spending virtually nothing on green energy.

Better for GM to be 100% liquidated than to be turned into another government bureaucracy.

Fine, but it was another government bureaucracy for a while, and yet our government failed to take advantage of its power to make GM do the right thing for our country and our world. That was a failure of action on Obama's part.

The bailout worked OK for GM and the economy. But I'd rather have seen GM fail, and let the new companies who are making viable automobiles like Tesla Motors take over.

The industrial consumers of oil do in fact use speculator predictions to hedge the price of fuel; it helps them forecast their own operating cost via futures trading. Without futures trading, businesses won't know how much their energy costs will be a month or three down the road.

Business doesn't know how much it costs to produce their energy? Ridiculous. Gambling is not necessary to running our economy. That's just the way the free market folks like you have decided to just allow to happen. Allowing business to do what it wants, means only it will do what it can get away with.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, huge subsidies have been in effect for a few years for oil and gas exploration. We want to push the companies toward alternative energy, and Obama has instituted some much needed funds to help new companies. But the big oil and gas companies are spending virtually nothing on green energy.

So the government is letting them keep more of the money they've made, to use it to explore drilling options that would reduce our energy dependence on the middle east? How terrible.

Fine, but it was another government bureaucracy for a while, and yet our government failed to take advantage of its power to make GM do the right thing for our country and our world. That was a failure of action on Obama's part.

The bailout worked OK for GM and the economy. But I'd rather have seen GM fail, and let the new companies who are making viable automobiles like Tesla Motors take over.

For the government to have "made" GM do anything would have been a disaster. Tesla's electric cars cost $60k-$100k a pop. GM's sales volume in that price range is lower than that of Porsche's or BMW's in the same price range. There is no way to justify throwing the billions that it took to bail out GM to support that kind of sales volume.

Even the principle of it is absurd. The automobile industry is the last thing that the government should get involved in. Obama explicitly stated that the government has no interest in entering the auto business, and wisely kept his word.

Business doesn't know how much it costs to produce their energy? Ridiculous. Gambling is not necessary to running our economy. That's just the way the free market folks like you have decided to just allow to happen. Allowing business to do what it wants, means only it will do what it can get away with.

Knowing how much your energy supply will cost in 3 months helps businesses forecast their operating costs, and ultimately helps stabilize prices. I'd rather leave the economy in the hands of "gamblers" who know how to analyze data than government bureaucrats who enact price controls, which eventually lead to rationing.

Originally Posted by Vinsan'80

So the government is letting them keep more of the money they've made, to use it to explore drilling options that would reduce our energy dependence on the middle east? How terrible.

Actually, yes. The expression "keep more of the money they made" implies that all taxation is illegitimate. Time to deep-six that nonsense. To start with, the companies didn't make that money; their employees, the society they operate in, and their customers made that money. The companies simply own it. Secondly, just as with any debt you owe to a creditor, what you owe in taxes isn't your money, it's the community's money.

When the government cuts taxes with a target like that, it's intended to produce a given economic result. In this case, it's an undesirable economic result because it encourages us to maintain our oil addiction and makes the ultimate move away from oil harder and harsher. If we are going to target tax breaks and use subsidies, we should target them towards genuinely desirable outcomes. That leaves open the question of whether we should do that to start with, of course.

Tesla's electric cars cost $60k-$100k a pop.

http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electr...tric-car/index http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electr...tric-car/index

The Nissan Leaf is in the $30k range. The Chevy Volt, about the same.

Knowing how much your energy supply will cost in 3 months helps businesses forecast their operating costs, and ultimately helps stabilize prices. I'd rather leave the economy in the hands of "gamblers" who know how to analyze data than government bureaucrats who enact price controls, which eventually lead to rationing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

There are other ways to impact the prices of things than by ham-handed Nixonian price controls.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, yes. The expression "keep more of the money they made" implies that all taxation is illegitimate. Time to deep-six that nonsense. To start with, the companies didn't make that money; their employees, the society they operate in, and their customers made that money. The companies simply own it. Secondly, just as with any debt you owe to a creditor, what you owe in taxes isn't your money, it's the community's money.

Ha. That kind of thinking (everybody's money is nobody's money) is what got us supersized-government, TBTF bailouts, and trillion-dollar deficits. Maybe we would act more responsibly if we thought of every dollar we make as our own.

http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electr...tric-car/index http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electr...tric-car/index

The Nissan Leaf is in the $30k range. The Chevy Volt, about the same.

Eric specifically mentioned Tesla. Still, the Leaf costs 2x more than the Versa from which it's derived, and the $40k Volt, 2x more than the new Cruze.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

There are other ways to impact the prices of things than by ham-handed Nixonian price controls.

Again, Eric specifically suggested government-mandated price controls. I've already argued how futures trading has a favorable effect on the prices of commodities.

Originally Posted by Vinsan'80

Ha. That kind of thinking (everybody's money is nobody's money) is what got us supersized-government, TBTF bailouts, and trillion-dollar deficits. Maybe we would act more responsibly if we thought of every dollar we make as our own.

You think our government is "super-sized"? Except in terms of military forces, it's nowhere near. The proper comparison of course is with other advanced economies.

The fact is, all nations as they become wealthier spend more of their money on public services. The reason for that is because public services are a positive good, not a necessary evil as people like you would foolishly have us believe. Public services mean good education, well-lit, well-repaired, safe streets, public libraries, public transportation, advances in public health, parks and recreation facilities, a social safety net. That's why taxes are higher in Europe than they are in Bangladesh. Both Europeans and Bangladeshis want this sort of thing. Europeans can afford it. Bangladeshis can't. Americans can afford it, too, although it's questionable whether we can simultaneously afford civilized public services and a military that costs as much as the entire rest of the world's combined.

Calling for slashing government to the bone is a call for rolling back civilization and returning to barbarism. Economic conservatism is barbarism. That is reality.

Eric specifically mentioned Tesla.

Your taking advantage of his error in doing so was fundamentally dishonest. I answered the point you were making, refusing to play the game.

Still, the Leaf costs 2x more than the Versa from which it's derived, and the $40k Volt, 2x more than the new Cruze.

True, but that price tag isn't something the technology requires, it's something the car companies feel they can get away with. Larger-scale production would bring the cost down, and in any case moving that direction we're not limited to battery-electric vehicles. The Toyota Prius hybrid costs just a bit over $20k. And in all cases one must factor in fuel savings over the life of the car. Drive a Prius for 100,000 miles, if gasoline costs $5 per gallon, you're talking a savings of $10,000 compared to, say, a Camry.

Again, Eric specifically suggested government-mandated price controls.

Again, using his error in doing so to score points is fundamentally dishonest.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You think our government is "super-sized"? Except in terms of military forces, it's nowhere near. The proper comparison of course is with other advanced economies.

The fact is, all nations as they become wealthier spend more of their money on public services. The reason for that is because public services are a positive good, not a necessary evil as people like you would foolishly have us believe. Public services mean good education, well-lit, well-repaired, safe streets, public libraries, public transportation, advances in public health, parks and recreation facilities, a social safety net. That's why taxes are higher in Europe than they are in Bangladesh. Both Europeans and Bangladeshis want this sort of thing. Europeans can afford it. Bangladeshis can't. Americans can afford it, too, although it's questionable whether we can simultaneously afford civilized public services and a military that costs as much as the entire rest of the world's combined.

Calling for slashing government to the bone is a call for rolling back civilization and returning to barbarism. Economic conservatism is barbarism. That is reality.

Ha. And economic liberalism is exactly what you've demonstrated; the idea that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do. So quick to assume you know what everyone wants. Maybe some people want the freedom to decide for themselves how their money is spent. The freedom from being responsible for paying for someone else's bad decisions. But alas, in the bailout age, there are no such things as bad decisions.

True, but that price tag isn't something the technology requires, it's something the car companies feel they can get away with. Larger-scale production would bring the cost down, and in any case moving that direction we're not limited to battery-electric vehicles. The Toyota Prius hybrid costs just a bit over $20k. And in all cases one must factor in fuel savings over the life of the car. Drive a Prius for 100,000 miles, if gasoline costs $5 per gallon, you're talking a savings of $10,000 compared to, say, a Camry.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Nissan and GM were losing money on each one of these things sold due to the high development costs. When the Volt was first announced, its target price was below $30k. Now it's $40k and change. They sell these things at a loss because yes, they have enough money to "get away with it", but mostly to pioneer the technology and reap all of the competitive advantages associated with doing so.

Originally Posted by Vinsan'80

Ha. And economic liberalism is exactly what you've demonstrated; the idea that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do. So quick to assume you know what everyone wants. Maybe some people want the freedom to decide for themselves how their money is spent.

Heh, in our part of the world it's your attitude that is defined as liberalism, market liberalism or neoliberalism to be precise.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Nissan and GM were losing money on each one of these things sold due to the high development costs. When the Volt was first announced, its target price was below $30k. Now it's $40k and change. They sell these things at a loss because yes, they have enough money to "get away with it", but mostly to pioneer the technology and reap all of the competitive advantages associated with doing so.

It will all work out once the system is run completely into the ground through PO and all the related "Peaks", in combination with exhaustion of ecosystems, massive population increase in the third world and western demographic decline. We are running up towards a real sink or swim situation, a real moment of truth.
The actual "Crisis"still lays a few decades into the future, but by then, old quarrels referencing to either bailouts, Galbraith or Milton Friedman will seem quaint. The world will adapt to electric cars alright, only that the richest will be the only ones able to afford one.
For the rest of us, we'd be happy to ride a bicycle and it's time to relearn how to groom a horse.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Heh, in our part of the world it's your attitude that is defined as liberalism, market liberalism or neoliberalism to be precise.

It will all work out once the system is run completely into the ground through PO and all the related "Peaks", in combination with exhaustion of ecosystems, massive population increase in the third world and western demographic decline. We are running up towards a real sink or swim situation, a real moment of truth.
The actual "Crisis"still lays a few decades into the future, but by then, old quarrels referencing to either bailouts, Galbraith or Milton Friedman will seem quaint. The world will adapt to electric cars alright, only that the richest will be the only ones able to afford one.
For the rest of us, we'd be happy to ride a bicycle and it's time to relearn how to groom a horse.

RW Americans are extremely provincial, as shown by Vinsan's use of "economic liberalism" to mean what you guys would call Social Democracy.

Originally Posted by Vinsan'80

So the government is letting them keep more of the money they've made, to use it to explore drilling options that would reduce our energy dependence on the middle east? How terrible.

Of course it's terrible. And why are you so concerned about "letting (the oil companies who are making record profits) keep more of the money they've made"? Why should they keep a penny? They are doing nothing but destroying the life on this planet.

For the government to have "made" GM do anything would have been a disaster. Tesla's electric cars cost $60k-$100k a pop. GM's sales volume in that price range is lower than that of Porsche's or BMW's in the same price range. There is no way to justify throwing the billions that it took to bail out GM to support that kind of sales volume.

Even the principle of it is absurd. The automobile industry is the last thing that the government should get involved in. Obama explicitly stated that the government has no interest in entering the auto business, and wisely kept his word.

Unwisely; it can be done. The government should have directed GM to make cars in the public interest. Then GM can design and make the cars. Failing this, it should be done by hiking the fuel efficiency standards. GM is already producing electric cars. They need to produce more. They need to switch entirely. And Tesla is already competing by offering cars in the 25K price range. The arguments that it can't be done are getting old real quick.

Perhaps the market will decide this anyway. It's a shame we can't use our powers as a nation to help it along; it would happen quicker. Which needs to happen.

Knowing how much your energy supply will cost in 3 months helps businesses forecast their operating costs, and ultimately helps stabilize prices. I'd rather leave the economy in the hands of "gamblers" who know how to analyze data than government bureaucrats who enact price controls, which eventually lead to rationing.

Eric specifically suggested government-mandated price controls.

No I didn't.
I won't propose that the price should be set by government bureaucrats. Maybe another time All I'm saying is that the price should be determined by producers and consumers in the usual course of business transactions, like most prices are determined, instead of by people who have nothing to do with it and whose only function is to gamble. And I think business can forecast by themselves what their costs are going to be 3 months in advance. They know what it costs to produce their products. They don't need gamblers to tell them. They can set their own prices based on what the market is doing.

Originally Posted by Vinsan'80

Ha. And economic liberalism is exactly what you've demonstrated; the idea that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

Nonsense; you're presenting a caricature, and how you expect to be taken seriously when you pull shit like that completely escapes me. I mean, you KNOW it's a caricature, right? You're not so brain-dead stupid that you actually BELIEVE that?

Of course there's a HUGE difference between saying that there are collective purposes that need to be served collectively and cannot be met by any single individual because no single individual has either the means or the motive, and saying something as ridiculous as "the government knows how to spend your money better than you do." Anyone with any sense knows that. Do you have any sense? There's the immediate question.

Originally Posted by Vinsan'80

Ha. And economic liberalism is exactly what you've demonstrated; the idea that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do. So quick to assume you know what everyone wants. Maybe some people want the freedom to decide for themselves how their money is spent. The freedom from being responsible for paying for someone else's bad decisions. But alas, in the bailout age, there are no such things as bad decisions.....Ha. That kind of thinking (everybody's money is nobody's money) is what got us supersized-government, TBTF bailouts, and trillion-dollar deficits. Maybe we would act more responsibly if we thought of every dollar we make as our own....

In the first place, though I opposed the Too Big to Fail bailouts, and think the banks should have been resized and restructured using FDIC, as smaller failed banks were, the TBTF bailouts were not something that proves the undesireability of super-sized government, as you call it. The government got back all its money with interest, so tea partiers and conservatives shouting over the bailouts is not over any problem of addition to the debt, but just shouting over a violation of your principles.

Second, I understand the desire for government to act more responsibly with taxpayer money. That is a reasonable goal. The way you and the tea partiers propose to reach that goal, is harmful to the goal. There are better ways to make the government responsible than trotting out slogans about someone knows how to spend your money better than you do. Maybe we just need to set a goal of a balanced budget and achieve it, like Clinton did. What's wrong with that?

Or, is your real goal to prop up the status quo instead? Because the government rocks the boat of oil company profits by requiring the company to change from what's it's doing (the status quo?). Just take money away from the government, so business can continue to screw over the people without "government intrusion in peoples' lives" (translation, government regulating (at the behest of the people) for the public interest such "people" as CEOs and Board Chairs who make 320 times more money than the rest of us)?

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Nissan and GM were losing money on each one of these things sold due to the high development costs. When the Volt was first announced, its target price was below $30k. Now it's $40k and change. They sell these things at a loss because yes, they have enough money to "get away with it", but mostly to pioneer the technology and reap all of the competitive advantages associated with doing so.

You don't know if they are losing money. But if so, all the more reason for government to help new industries that advance society, just as has been done even during your cherished "constitutional" 19th century. Do I need to list all the industries that have been helped, for better or worse, by the government, down through the years? You wouldn't be reading these words otherwise.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Unwisely; it can be done. The government should have directed GM to make cars in the public interest. Then GM can design and make the cars. Failing this, it should be done by hiking the fuel efficiency standards. GM is already producing electric cars. They need to produce more. They need to switch entirely. And Tesla is already competing by offering cars in the 25K price range. The arguments that it can't be done are getting old real quick.

Perhaps the market will decide this anyway. It's a shame we can't use our powers as a nation to help it along; it would happen quicker. Which needs to happen.

Ha. Why does the government need to tell GM what to make? If GM can't make cars that the public wants to buy, then they should have closed or found another line of business instead of running to the government for a bailout. You are correct in saying that the market will decide. If the consumers in the market still want to pay $5 a gallon to fill up their SUV's, then let GM oblige them.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Nonsense; you're presenting a caricature, and how you expect to be taken seriously when you pull shit like that completely escapes me. I mean, you KNOW it's a caricature, right? You're not so brain-dead stupid that you actually BELIEVE that?

Of course there's a HUGE difference between saying that there are collective purposes that need to be served collectively and cannot be met by any single individual because no single individual has either the means or the motive, and saying something as ridiculous as "the government knows how to spend your money better than you do." Anyone with any sense knows that. Do you have any sense? There's the immediate question.

It's not any more ridiculous than using Bangladesh as an example of a limited-government society to present the caricature of barbarism. Yes, I recognize that things like roadworks and police make sense as public entities, but for the majority of services, private enterprises are the way to go. The government and all its entities will always just be a necessary evil as long as politicians can be bought by lobbyists and labor unions.

Originally Posted by Vinsan'80

It's not any more ridiculous than using Bangladesh as an example of a limited-government society to present the caricature of barbarism.

That's not what I was doing. Bangladesh is not a voluntarily small-government society (actually, there aren't any). It has limited government services because it's too poor to afford more generous ones. That's what I was saying: those societies that can afford "big government" always have it. The reason is because government services are valuable, civilizing, and worth having if one has the money to pay for them as a society.

Yes, I recognize that things like roadworks and police make sense as public entities, but for the majority of services, private enterprises are the way to go. The government and all its entities will always just be a necessary evil as long as politicians can be bought by lobbyists and labor unions.

If you mean by "the majority of services," the majority of services now provided by the government, that is simply and demonstrably untrue; if you mean the majority of all services without such qualification, the majority of services ARE provided by private enterprises. But government is necessary to do those desirable things that are beneficial to everyone equally.

You mentioned roads, and that's a good example of what I'm talking about. Suppose there were no road between where you lived and the next town. Suppose you had enough money to build one. Would it be worth your while to do so, other than as a toll road (if even then)? No. It would be beneficial to you, because it would make it easier for you to get to the next town, but it would be equally beneficial to everyone else. Everyone would benefit from it equally, but only YOU would be paying for it. And that sucks. Which means you wouldn't do it. In particular, no business will do anything like that; business expenses have to be justified in terms of what provides benefits only to the business laying out the cash, NOT to it and its competitors equally.

There are lots of other, similar things, including public education, public transportation, parks and recreation -- well, I gave a good partial list above. There's no profit in any of those things, and so no incentive for private business to do them, but they are of great benefit to the people as a whole, which means they should be done. And that's why Europe has higher taxes and bigger government than Bangladesh: because Europe is rich and Bangladesh is poor. And because government services are not a necessary evil but an intrinsic good, which all societies have to the extent they feel they can afford them.

Originally Posted by Vinsan'80

The government and all its entities will always just be a necessary evil as long as politicians can be bought by lobbyists and labor unions.

Then folks like you should get active in the on-going effort by common cause and other groups to stop the government from being for sale. When folks like you vote for tea party loonies and other Republicans, it makes this a lot harder, because then we get the Supreme Court that we have that enables and promotes the very thing you imply above that you don't approve of.

Government services, which provide things people need to everyone equally as Brian says, benefit everyone and all businesses by increasing economic activity. We need to invest in green tech, because a healthy environment benefits everyone, and the customers of all businesses. Our current energy system of gamblers and monopolies stuck in the past is good only for a few CEOs and major stockholders in a few companies-- and really, not even them.

From CNN, Mississippi floods beating control system.

With various flood relief spillways being opened, CNN is reviewing the needs and technologies. First, we are having more Mississippi critical floods of late. For the first 40 years of the Bonnet Carré Spillway, they only opened it 3 times. In the second 40, it was opened 6 times. This might well be in part a result of global warming, with increasing water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico resulting in more storms in the Mississippi valley.

The Corps of Engineers current strategy might also be a factor. The more levees one puts out, the less often one is apt to have flooding difficulties, but the more severe the problems become when nature overwhelms the defenses. By walling off flood plains so farmers can farm the flood plains, nature's normal method of handling excess water is neutralized.

The levee system also prevents sediment from refreshing the Mississippi delta area. The delta is sinking. Once upon a time the sediment heavy floods dumped new layers of silt on the delta every year. The levee system keeps the sediment in the main channels, where it is washed out to sea.

The CNN article proposes a change in approach. It is fairly clear there is a need for more spillways to protect New Orleans and other populated areas near the delta. It would be healthy to divert sediment laden water into the delta. Thus, it is proposed that spillways that open onto the delta might be a good idea.

Makes sense. Still, given the current political atmosphere, I'm not sure I see spending money for such projects.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

From CNN, Mississippi floods beating control system.

With various flood relief spillways being opened, CNN is reviewing the needs and technologies. First, we are having more Mississippi critical floods of late. For the first 40 years of the Bonnet Carré Spillway, they only opened it 3 times. In the second 40, it was opened 6 times. This might well be in part a result of global warming, with increasing water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico resulting in more storms in the Mississippi valley.

The Corps of Engineers current strategy might also be a factor. The more levees one puts out, the less often one is apt to have flooding difficulties, but the more severe the problems become when nature overwhelms the defenses. By walling off flood plains so farmers can farm the flood plains, nature's normal method of handling excess water is neutralized.

The levee system also prevents sediment from refreshing the Mississippi delta area. The delta is sinking. Once upon a time the sediment heavy floods dumped new layers of silt on the delta every year. The levee system keeps the sediment in the main channels, where it is washed out to sea.

The CNN article proposes a change in approach. It is fairly clear there is a need for more spillways to protect New Orleans and other populated areas near the delta. It would be healthy to divert sediment laden water into the delta. Thus, it is proposed that spillways that open onto the delta might be a good idea.

Makes sense. Still, given the current political atmosphere, I'm not sure I see spending money for such projects.

As long as their politics is dominated by "government spending is TEH EVIL" thinking they do not deserve better flood protection. If they want Big Gummit off their backs then fine, just don't come asking for money to help this things like this.

Originally Posted by Odin

As long as their politics is dominated by "government spending is TEH EVIL" thinking they do not deserve better flood protection. If they want Big Gummit off their backs then fine, just don't come asking for money to help this things like this.

Didn't you read the article, Odin? Teh Gubmint is the one that caused the grief they are experiencing today. The levee system, as a government undertaking, provided a benefit to farmers upstream at the expense of a lack of silt-replacement on the delta. Those farmers never had to -- nor will they now -- bear (or even consider) the real cost of getting what they wanted, and now the people downstream are suffering with little to no hope of recourse. In particular, with no hope of recourse against the very people who derived the benefit from the system which is now hurting them.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Didn't you read the article, Odin? Teh Gubmint is the one that caused the grief they are experiencing today. The levee system, as a government undertaking, provided a benefit to farmers upstream at the expense of a lack of silt-replacement on the delta.

Interference with silt-replacement in the delta was, indeed, mentioned in the article. It was hardly the main point being made, though. Most of the problems mentioned were not due to the levees existing but due to them being inadequate, either because the natural water system had been expanded beyond what was originally built for or because of decay of the dam system.

Another CNN article covers the same part of the world from the perspective of one particular industry: Oysterman: BP left us vulnerable, flooding could be 'knockout blow'.

Multiple hurricanes, the BP oil spill and now the spillway openings have all caused major disruptions in the oyster industry. After the BP spill, it was the insurance companies that were having problems. They have had to pay out too often lately. The government declared that insurance companies no longer had to offer coverage for the oyster industry, so they didn't. Thus, a lot of folks aren't going to be covered for the damage resulting from the spillway openings. As BP is responsible in some sense for the lack of insurance, BP may end up paying. However, BP is not exactly prompt in responding to claims.

Not sure if there is a clean theme or moral to the story, but it does illustrate the dance between big oil, big government, global warming, and people who don't like safety nets except when they themselves are hurt.

On the subject of water and global warming - I was in a discussion with a real estate appraiser up in Denver over a question about Denver's and Albuquerque's water supply. It came up because one couple looked at Denver's long-term prospects and said "Drought. We're moving." Anyway -

While Denver's supply is really good for now, he was less optimistic about Albuquerque, which is well downstream of them, because, "Northern Colorado now has Southern Colorado's climate, and Southern Colorado now has the climate of Northern New Mexico.

Eeep! I lived in Las Cruces, at the very bottom of the state, for 4 years. Muy caliente! Y muy seco! Oh, Albuquerque has so much to look forward to -- not to mention Northern Mexico! Old Mexico, the country, not New Mexico the state.

Perhaps heroic Millies will tow icebergs from Antarctica to Los Angeles. But they will have to time their arrival to avoid the hurricane season.