Was "Duck Soup" a documentary on I. C. C. regulation?
Thank You for that.
Eleanor clearly supported the "alphabet soup" agenda in general. A particular favorite of hers was the R.E.A. (Rural Electrification$1***$2n). Definitely fed. gov't intervention, but did you now that in 1930 amost 40 percent of U.S. households did not have power? (The rural parts, mostly, but including some small towns, too.) Compare that to Rural Free Delivery about 40 years earlier.
As for the specifics of who paid for or initiated what projects, I think generally Eleanor was "out of the fray." She and Harold Ickes did not get along, it was generally known; and he was the leading egghead of the New Deal, at least in calculating what was possible and how. (A satirical gibe in Thomas Pynchon's novel Gravity's Rainbow has her and Ickes laughing and quoting the "Who Dat Man" (Why, It's Gabriel)" musical number from the 1930s Marx Brothers movie, A Day at the Races, that they had seen the night before (together??). I don't know if Pynchon meant that to be an example of "humor makes for strange bedfellows" (indeed, almost everyone did get a kick out of that number, at least until some critics started racially tut-tutting about it); or perhaps Pynchon's little scene was meant to underly the sense of absurd and alternate past history that permeates that large and dense novel.
This isn't q-u-i-t-e within the scope of the two history quizzes on these boards (hint), but does anyone know what year Railway Express went belly up?
Anyway, even though there are no trains in it, a sure way to beat a blue mood is to rent or borrow the DVD of A Day at the Races. See it with someone you love, and see if you can resist cuing "Who Dat Man" the entire following day! -- al
"WASHINGTON — A Congressional report released today accuses Class I freight railroads of charging higher rates to shippers without competitive rail access, the Associated Press has reported. The industry quickly blasted the report, which comes from the Senate Commerce Committee."
Trains News Wire 9-15"
The N. R. A., the W. P. A., the T. V. A. etc. etc. etc. had FDR and Eleanor written all over them. Would Eleanor agree railroad rates are too high? Would she say a new I. C. C. is in order?
Who is actually getting hurt by this? Seems to me the homeowners are getting a nicer looking city and the city gets some offset which may reduce the tree price.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Convicted One Bucyrus: It would be utterly foolhardy and irresponsible to the taxpayers for a city to be planting trees on the taxpayers’ dime if they did not know the value of the offset. For one thing, the cost of planting the trees might be higher than the value of the offset, so it would be a losing proposition. I suspect you may be overlooking the (likely) covert agenda in play. The city's 50% contribution is out of the taxpayer's pocket, and the (each) resident pays the other 50%, so we now have a system where the cost of entry is nil to the local authority. This authority, however, will be entitled to 100% of any net proceeds obtained from the eventual selling of carbon credits resulting from the program. The authority is then able to spend this money on WHATEVER they deem fit. So, it's an ideal vehicle for securing funds for alternate priorities on which the payers will have no ultimate say whatsover how it's disbursed Eleanor's husband woulda been MIGHTY proud. .
Bucyrus: It would be utterly foolhardy and irresponsible to the taxpayers for a city to be planting trees on the taxpayers’ dime if they did not know the value of the offset. For one thing, the cost of planting the trees might be higher than the value of the offset, so it would be a losing proposition.
It would be utterly foolhardy and irresponsible to the taxpayers for a city to be planting trees on the taxpayers’ dime if they did not know the value of the offset. For one thing, the cost of planting the trees might be higher than the value of the offset, so it would be a losing proposition.
I am not overlooking that agenda. And I agree that it is a lose-lose proposition for the taxpayers to pay for the trees and not reap the reward of the carbon offsets. But that is a little agenda compared to the mind-boggling agenda of the carbon trading system itself. You could say that the tree-planting agenda is a mini-agenda wrapped in the greater agenda.
But the residents who will pay for trees won’t mind. They won’t see the agendas. They will buy the trees just to be green. And taxing authorities are already on the receiving end of the carbon-offset system. So they don’t have to do much to reap the benefit. I would submit that a city would pay more for the accounting just to keep track of the carbon offset than they would earn from the offset.
Bucyrus It would be utterly foolhardy and irresponsible to the taxpayers for a city to be planting trees on the taxpayers’ dime if they did not know the value of the offset. For one thing, the cost of planting the trees might be higher than the value of the offset, so it would be a losing proposition.
al-in-chgo Well, perhaps the time is gone during which everything didn't have to be related in terms of money . . . I for one am a tree-hugger on a practical as well as an idealstic level. I actually won second place in 4-H for "Foresty Appreciation" when I was 12 -- part of the appreciation, along with identifying and collecting deciduous leaves, was planting close to 100 saplings on an open (and rather windswept) plot. County agents in those days loved to give away saplings--not a dozen, but a hundred minimum. (Recall that 4-H is a federal program but involves the cooperation of county agents, at least to some degree.) Also, Chuck and I still occasionally see the old "shelter belts" on Illnois farmsteads when we drive over the old federal highways. This came as history even to me, but in the 1930s the county farm agents were encouraged (probably with the help of some New Deal program) to plant pine trees in a nice tight row to protect the north or west side of the farm house. Gave shade and protected from those howling Prairie winds in cold weather. Some of them are 70, 80 feet tall, but they still provide some shade and a wind break. Somewhere between "do it because it will be of benefit to you," and "do it because it's just a good idea," a lot of good was done--and other than the cost of the trees, it cost the federal government very little and the obliging farmer only a relatively small amount of time. What amazes me is how constant a height the crowns are--you don't get that with maples. If this turned into a sermonette, I apologize. - al
Well, perhaps the time is gone during which everything didn't have to be related in terms of money . . . I for one am a tree-hugger on a practical as well as an idealstic level. I actually won second place in 4-H for "Foresty Appreciation" when I was 12 -- part of the appreciation, along with identifying and collecting deciduous leaves, was planting close to 100 saplings on an open (and rather windswept) plot. County agents in those days loved to give away saplings--not a dozen, but a hundred minimum. (Recall that 4-H is a federal program but involves the cooperation of county agents, at least to some degree.)
Also, Chuck and I still occasionally see the old "shelter belts" on Illnois farmsteads when we drive over the old federal highways. This came as history even to me, but in the 1930s the county farm agents were encouraged (probably with the help of some New Deal program) to plant pine trees in a nice tight row to protect the north or west side of the farm house. Gave shade and protected from those howling Prairie winds in cold weather. Some of them are 70, 80 feet tall, but they still provide some shade and a wind break. Somewhere between "do it because it will be of benefit to you," and "do it because it's just a good idea," a lot of good was done--and other than the cost of the trees, it cost the federal government very little and the obliging farmer only a relatively small amount of time. What amazes me is how constant a height the crowns are--you don't get that with maples.
If this turned into a sermonette, I apologize. - al
Eleanor was a prophet. Over 70 years before CO2 was made an issue, she was doing her part.
Oh I am all for trees. When I moved in here in 1980, the first thing I did was plant 69 little evergreen trees, filling the entire yard space with them. I have some of just about every type of evergreen tree. Now they are 50-80 feet tall.
My above comments are only in relation to cities planting trees as a collective enterprise to farm carbon offsets. I say just let trees be trees. I don't know whether my trees are adding or subtracting carbon. They attract a lot of birds that spew CO2 when they sing.
Long, long ago (which I can remember), before anyone ever heard of carbon footprints, carbon taxes or credits or global climate change, a lot of American cities had programs to plant trees on parkways. Sometimes they did it , sometimes the homeowner paid and often it was a joint effort. I guess it was a time when trees could be appreciated for their beauty, shade and possible cooler shade that contributed to the common good. I guess those times are sadly gone.
Convicted One Bucyrus: I would like to know more about cities who are using tax dollars to plant trees in order to avoid buying carbon credits. as tested in Denver: The potential of urban tree plantings to be cost effective in carboncredit markets The catch is, by insisting that the new plantings be located only on park strip (city property) then only the city will be entitled to reap the (eventual) carbon credit benefit.
Bucyrus: I would like to know more about cities who are using tax dollars to plant trees in order to avoid buying carbon credits.
as tested in Denver: The potential of urban tree plantings to be cost effective in carboncredit markets
The catch is, by insisting that the new plantings be located only on park strip (city property) then only the city will be entitled to reap the (eventual) carbon credit benefit.
As we live our lives from one moment to the next, every single move we make will either add or subtract from our carbon footprints. Some higher authority will have to decide how big our carbon footprints are allowed to be. If our footprints happen to exceed that maximum, we will have as many options to reduce our footprints as there are grains of sand. Some higher authority will have to assign a value to all those options.
And that authority must also decide a value for all the things we do to increase our carbon footprints. So, we will each need an account that measures what we do to increase our footprint and what we do to reduce it. The balance of that account will change with every breath we take. There are bound to be disputes in how this accounting is carried out, so we will need a system of judges and arbitrators that will make rulings on the meaning of what assigned values are assigned to and how they are tallied.
And just what happens if your carbon footprint happens to exceed your carbon allowance or cap? Your carbon account will reveal this net carbon debit, and a punitive tax will be levied on you for the excess. I suppose the higher authority that establishes the value of your nearly infinite carbon credits and debits will also establish the tax for non-compliance. This means that your carbon account will have to be monitored in real time by the government in order to enforce compliance by levying carbon taxes and fines. Maybe they will require us to post a carbon bond in a cash account as a fundamental requirement of citizenship. Then this cash account can be debited automatically in real time if our carbon account slips out of compliance.
I would not plant a bunch of trees until I knew what their offset or credit value was. It would be utterly foolhardy and irresponsible to the taxpayers for a city to be planting trees on the taxpayers’ dime if they did not know the value of the offset. For one thing, the cost of planting the trees might be higher than the value of the offset, so it would be a losing proposition. But, worse than that, there might not be any net credit at all from planting trees. On one hand, trees consume CO2, but it adds carbon to create them, transport them, and plant them. It adds carbon to fertilize them, water them, trim them, and spray them. It adds carbon for the city to run the computer used to cut the check to pay for the trees, and pay for fertilizing, watering, trimming, and spraying.
Bucyrus I would like to know more about cities who are using tax dollars to plant trees in order to avoid buying carbon credits.
Well, one ideology suggests the value of marketing "carbon storage strategies"
other ideas:
Los Angeles: A method for locating potential tree-planting sites in urban areas
Urban Forests and Climate Change (lots of links)
In a nutshell, the strategy is usually some variant of enlisting taxpayer support to plant an "urban canopy" on the park strip located between city sidewalks and the curb. Promoting aesthetic quality, shade, bio diversity, or whatever might motivate the citizenry. In my particular town the city offers residents a cost splitting incentive, if the resident will pay half the cost then the city will match that amount with tax dollars.
If Wall Street gets a piece of the action for brokering it, anything is possible.
BACKGROUND: Kudzu was introduced into the U.S. in 1876 at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, where it was promoted as a forage crop and an ornamental plant. From 1935 to the mid-1950s, farmers in the south were encouraged to plant kudzu to reduce soil erosion, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps planted it widely for many years. Kudzu was recognized as a pest weed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and, in 1953, was removed from its list of permissible cover plants.
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/invasivetutorial/kudzu.htm
Should we thank Eleanor for encouraging the CCC and kudzu? CO2 beware, kudzu is expanding everywhere.
Ya know, we have LOTS of mesquite down here where I live.
I wonder if they'd consider a mesquite credit?
Kudzu credits, rag weed rebates, etc. could they be a game changer? Short lines ill maintained could sell their credits to more prosperous connecting lines. Will lightly used lines be barely maintained with one train a month simply to keep their CO2 consuming capabilities on the books?
Dandelion credits...I LIKE that!
Victrola1 Weeds growing between the rails, do those rate a carbon credit?
Weeds growing between the rails, do those rate a carbon credit?
Johnny
Convicted One Several municipalities with which I have first hand knowledge of, are using tax dollars to plant trees in anticipation of the imposition of "carbon credits" brokering, preparing to become sellers instead of buyers. This has me wondering, when the carbon credits trading becomes mandatory, many railroads have oddles and boodles of trees sitting on their land along their right-of-ways, I wonder if any of those railroads will be in a position to be sellers as opposed to buyers?
Several municipalities with which I have first hand knowledge of, are using tax dollars to plant trees in anticipation of the imposition of "carbon credits" brokering, preparing to become sellers instead of buyers.
This has me wondering, when the carbon credits trading becomes mandatory, many railroads have oddles and boodles of trees sitting on their land along their right-of-ways, I wonder if any of those railroads will be in a position to be sellers as opposed to buyers?
That would be a question for the U.S. Bureau of Carbon Quantification (USBCQ). Actually, I think everybody will be both selling and buying on an individual and on an organizational basis. It will be like doing your taxes every day of the year.
I would like to know more about cities who are using tax dollars to plant trees in order to avoid buying carbon credits.
Eleanor Roosevelt's Friday song of the week:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CylR5EDr9Uo
Does Eleanor use a Mac, or Ubuntu etc. Linux? Does the updated page work well on anything other than landslide majority Microsoft O/S and Internet Explorer? Is this a democracy with majority tyranny, or a republic where the minority is respected?
Is this the greatest thing since Eleanor was able to replace her storage battery radio with one you plug right into the wall? What will Atwater-Kent think of next?
Eleanor Roosevelt welcomes you to the new and improved trains.com general discussion forum.
Bucyrus Convicted One FWIW, I don't think that the obvious "carbon credits" trading scam proves or disproves global warming.\ it's a bad "solution" to a growing problem. True, but the people who brought us the carbon-offset solution are the same ones who alerted us to what they contend is a manmade climate problem. And I do not see that the alleged problem has been proven. Not even close.
Convicted One FWIW, I don't think that the obvious "carbon credits" trading scam proves or disproves global warming.\ it's a bad "solution" to a growing problem.
FWIW, I don't think that the obvious "carbon credits" trading scam proves or disproves global warming.\
it's a bad "solution" to a growing problem.
True, but the people who brought us the carbon-offset solution are the same ones who alerted us to what they contend is a manmade climate problem. And I do not see that the alleged problem has been proven. Not even close.
My Uncle used to say, " Never trust a politician!"
When he sticks his hand out to shake your had, put your other over your wallet!
[Then when he leaves the house, count the family silverware]
Convicted One Bucyrus I would not draw any religious conclusions about the hot weather. Funny that you would make a reference tying the two together. I find it of interest the things some people are willing to believe just because they read it in a very old book, yet they can witness unprecedented melt off of the polar icecaps with their own two eyes and still insist that global warming is a ruse...go figure.
Bucyrus I would not draw any religious conclusions about the hot weather.
I would not draw any religious conclusions about the hot weather.
Funny that you would make a reference tying the two together. I find it of interest the things some people are willing to believe just because they read it in a very old book, yet they can witness unprecedented melt off of the polar icecaps with their own two eyes and still insist that global warming is a ruse...go figure.
I don’t think it is an unprecedented melt. I think there are natural cooling and warming cycles going on everywhere, both locally and broadly, short term and long term. Some of them may be so long that they may appear to be unprecedented from our relatively short historical perspective.
However, I don’t believe that these cycles are being caused by manmade activities, which emit CO2, and that the only remedy is to redistribute the world’s wealth from the rich to the poor through the agency of governments. It just seems too pat that a supposed scientific theory comes along that suddenly gives the world’s redistributionists and control freaks everything they have ever dreamed of.
BucyrusI would not draw any religious conclusions about the hot weather.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.