US Remake

In response to the concern regarding transport of crude oil through Washington State for foreign versus for domestic use:

Not all fossil fuels transferred through WA State are for domestic markets.

The refineries north of Seattle that receive crude by rail are not, unless there is some recent development of which I have not heard, equipped to transship crude rail to marine. Even if they export part of the finished product, the bulk of our local gasoline, diesel, heating oil, and jet fuel comes from those refineries.

Remember that oil is merely a commodity to those who buy, sell, and get rich from it. So often we say that the US should not be exporting “our” oil. In fact, none of it is “our” oil. It belongs to the companies that pay a fee to the government to extract it. The government has ceded control, as they have with other natural resources, in return for some cash.

I have maintained the position that trains and refineries are the wrong target for protest. We need to change habits. In Washington, we use 16,282 gallons of oil products per day (residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation), of which 13,020 gallons per day is used for transportation. Of that, 7,600 gallons per day is gasoline and the rest is diesel, LNG and LPG. That doesn’t count the oil products that we feel so good about recycling: plastic bottles, bags, and packaging.

One way or another, the crude to produce what we use (even if none of the product is exported) must get here, to our Washington State refineries. The alternatives are pipeline, rail, and truck.

Pipeline poses significant hazards per incident. There are about 280 significant (specific amounts of damage, injury, and volume) pipeline spills per year. These generally do not generate fire or injury, but a lot of environmental damage. There are fewer annual pipeline spills, but each is about three times larger than the average spillage from trains. Pipeline construction has a greater environmental impact than the use of existing or even expanded existing rail routes.

Rail also poses significant hazards per incident. There are more rail incidents than pipeline incidents, but in general, the effects of rail incidents in terms of environmental destruction, are about a third of the magnitude of pipeline incidents. In general, the safety of pipeline and rail are roughly equivalent per volume shipped. 99.99 percent of oil shipments by rail arrive at the destination without incident. The incidents involving spillage are .01 percent of the total shipments.

Truck is the other alternative for moving crude oil to Washington refineries. Get rid of the trains, build no pipelines, and truck is what is left. Each train carries roughly 600 truckloads of oil. Truck crash frequency (about 3,425,000 annually) is 1237 times train crash frequency (about 2,768 annually). That means an annual rate of 74,241 oil truck incidents per year per train. Nationally, there are about 4,500 crude oil trains per year. Were all to travel by truck, there would be approximately 334 million oil truck incidents per year, in addition to the current number of incidents for material shipped by truck. There is not much news nationally about petroleum truck crashes, spills, fires, and explosions. They are not as spectacular as oil train accidents, but they generate great damage (e.g., bridges burned beyond repair, related off-highway fires). This is much like the relatively minuscule incidence of airplane crashes. There are not many but each is spectacular, so they are widely and repeated (or continuously) covered by the media.

Every month, as many people are killed in highway crashes as there were in the attacks of 9/11/01 and every year, highway crash injuries are twice the US soldier casualty count in all wars since 1940. The news media never puts highway safety into that context. Unless there is some particularly spectacular incident, they slip quietly by except in the local news. A large part of 334 million truck accidents would probably slip quietly by too.

There is a lot of publicity given to the increasing number of oil train incidents particularly since about 2009. That would accompany the large increase in the shipment of crude oil by rail because the supply increased and the pipelines either don’t go where the crude is wanted or they are already at capacity.

The number has declined however, with the sharp reduction in domestic production as the market has shifted to economically favor Middle East oil. That reduction generates the additional and generally not considered consequence of being dependent on folks who really don’t like us, and giving them a lot of money to conduct their dislike. Then we deploy the military to protect our interests, which is effectively what we consider to be our oil under their dirt.

Increasing the amount shipped by pipeline would result in a greater number of pipeline incidents as well. The proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline across Canada is such an instance. The existing pipeline is at capacity and demand is growing. Even were there to be no export, the additional supply is needed here. The automobile population is growing at a rate similarly to the people population growth. The alternatives for supply are new pipeline, rail on existing lines, or truck.

Another issue that is of concern is the fact that there is not enough staff on these mile long oil trains to de-couple the cars at a mid-point to prevent a fire on one end sending the whole train into flames. Is this a Federal mgmt. issue or do BNSF (which handles 94%) and Union Pacific (6%) have capability to make us safer?

First let me correct the descriptor when referring to a long freight train: “Mile-long” has not accurately described a long freight train for a very long time. Typical freight trains are now generally 7,000 to 14,000 feet. Typical crude oil trains are 7,400 feet, or 1.4 miles long.

Regarding staffing: That would require some study to determine the effectiveness. Answers that I don’t have are: Among derailed trains, are there typically any cars that are not derailed that are not involved in spill, fire, or explosion? How close would be safe for the crew member to go to cut the rear end of the train from the derailment? How close would be safe for the front locomotive crew member to get to the derailment to cut the head end of the train away from the derailment?

The rail industry does not want oil train (or any other kind of train) accidents, or any other kind. They are expensive in many more ways than are visible. The employees certainly don’t want them. They must deal with them in person. The Federal Railroad Administration doesn’t want railroad accidents of any kind. The regulations on rail safety are thorough (49 CFR 200-299). As well, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (49 CFR 105-110, 130, and 171-180) and Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains (80 FR 26643) apply. Also, the FRA established the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to develop new regulatory standards, through a collaborative process, with all segments of the rail community working together to fashion mutually satisfactory solutions on safety regulatory issues. Members of RSAC include the industry, consultants, and labor. Yes, it says mutually acceptable. That is not a case of industry telling regulators what to do, it is a matter of figuring out what works and what is a waste of time and money.

The industry also operates Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Colorado, where track and train technology is developed. Trains (often instrumented) operate continuously on a loop (generally instrumented) track in order to test new technology for safety and durability and to better predict and preempt failure.

According to March 2017 Federal Railroad Administration data based on per million train miles, since 2000:

• Train accident rate is down 44%
• Equipment-caused accident rate is down 34%
• Track-caused accident rate is down 53%
• Derailment rate is down 44%

These downtrends in accident rates can be generally attributed to the  results of TTC’s research.

Should anyone have a realistic idea for safety improvement (such as the crew on the rear end of the train), contacting the Federal Railroad Administration is in order. If they have not already considered it, they will indeed consider the matter.

In the end, it still comes down to that we aren’t going to stop taking it out of the ground and transporting it until we stop using it. Maybe it doesn’t seem fair to single out the users as the problem, but were it not for them, there would be no production.

-30-

Thos

 

 

 

The current situation has existed for a long time, although ebbing and flowing as control attempts come and go. This 1889 drawing by Joseph Keppler for Puck (magazine) depicts the corporations being in charge of the Senate.

Like an infestation of roaches, it is thought to have been eradicated by the time night falls and we go to sleep, only to be found revived when we wake up and turn on the lights.

However, worse than unsuccessfully eradicating the infestation, we even support the roaches when they overpopulate and their colony is in danger. Somehow, the roaches have deceived us into believing that, although they are eating the food in our kitchen cabinets, they are essential to us. There is a history of the corporations collapsing the economy and the people upon whom they have tread bailing them out.

This power, corporate power and the extreme wealth that controls it, is the Fascist Regime we must overcome. The antics of Trump, the healthcare debacle, Russia, White House staff debacles, and endless irrational tweeting are the diversion, not the undertaking of the regime. It’s like walking into the kitchen and seeing a moth flying about (yes, a stretch to consider the moth was put there by the roaches, but otherwise, the metaphor works), concentrating on eliminating the moth, and overlooking the cabinet under the sink that is alive with roaches.

Meanwhile, the real regime is working as fast as possible to sell public assets to themselves, institute a police state, and eliminate our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution (well, except the one about owning guns, which will go away too as soon as the Regime feels threatened by the serfs) and broached in the Declaration of Independence, in the name of liberty.

The roaches are like the Terminator. Defeat has only been and probably will continue to be temporary, they’ll be back. The struggle is an epic one that we can’t afford to lose.

Don’t fall for the diversion. Concentrate on the roaches.

-30-

Thos

 

 

Paraphrased from Kris Kristofferson. Too bad Janis isn’t around to sing it.

Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ stoppin’ me
Nothin’s, worth nothin’ hon’ if it ain’t free, no no
And, feelin’ good was easy, Lord, when po’ folk sang the blues
You know, feelin’ good was good enough for me
Good enough for me and elite folk like me

I have been trying for over a month to write something that explains what is happening around/to us. The problem is that the audience consists of people who can’t see what is happening and those who don’t want to.

The other problem is that the situation we are approaching is not Fascism. It isn’t that simple.

Throughout history, Fascism has involved a national leader, often elected, and his relatively small Cadre. There have been struggles, many lengthy and bloody, to end the reign of terror brought on by such people. Once the leader and Cadre are defeated, things return to normal. Through this view, many people see Trump as the leader, Like Hitler or Mussolini, with a cadre of Bannon, et al. The popular notion is that Trump will be impeached and it will be over. We will return to normal.

Hopes and effort are put on Russiagate (ugh, Watergate had nothing to do with water; it was a hotel, but the media seem to speak/write English as a second language…and I don’t really know what the first one is). It’s the talk of the town. It’s the talk of Indivisible. It’s the talk of the talk shows. There will probably be a lot of folks partying down if/when Trump is deposed.

I say if because Republicans control the government and because there are some (including me) question the wisdom of impeaching Trump. Folks who think that way know that the problem will not go away. The next several in line are not as dumb as Trump, which makes them vastly more dangerous.

As people are in awe of the Great Wizard, the little men behind the screen are manipulate them into repression. The men behind the  screen have spent over four decades setting up the Great Wizard. They are almost at the end of the game. They have bought the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, unions, universities, news and entertainment media, and even church groups. All of those who have been bought are following the script. Those who do not are considered to be the enemy. We have reached the point of once great news sources like New York Times and Washington Post are resembling Pravda of decades ago. News and commentary that does not follow the approved script has taken refuge on internet to be free of corporate masters providing the approved script. That is why there is such an effort to suppress the use of internet. The Communist Party in China does it, why can’t we?

Trump is eliminating regulations as fast as he can. We are on the trail of important things: monuments, food, and environment. However, those pesky regulations are also issued by Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Highway Administration, and others of similar importance in our daily existence.

Since my work has, for the past 50 years, has been heavily affected by regulations (FRA), most of which came about when the government got tired of destruction and carnage, I saw where Trump was going as soon as he started his regulations rant.

This morning, I found this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrc1EmUhWOE

…which demonstrates that they don’t need SS-like police or even soldiers to bring us into line or kill us. They can do it in craftier, sneakier, more benign ways.

The video contains material that some don’t want to hear. It may offend some. That’s been my problem about trying to tie our current situation to Fascism. It is Plutocracy, or perhaps more accurately, Oligarchic Plutocracy that we are facing. Trump is the smoke, not the fire. We absolutely must work on methods to end the reign of the Oligarchic Plutocracy (a rather substantial group of Really Rich with a Lot Of Power taking over the government with the goal of eliminating it, allowing them to do whatever they want to whomever they want, whenever they want).

Get a copy of Dark Money by Jane Mayer. If this video doesn’t open your eyes wide enough, the book (also available on audio CD) will.

Many folks talk so often about beating up the past, beating a dead horse, etc. every time last year’s election or this year’s failures are brought up. It’s funny that so many folks consider the review of the game video by the team, criticizing their own performance, to be standard procedure, but going over political failures is beating a dead horse.

We have folks who decry starting a class war at any mention of the Beyond Ultra Rich. They sound like Neville Chamberlain pronouncing that Hitler was an honorable guy and if he was allowed to annex Czechoslovakia unchallenged, all would be fine.

Folks, There IS a class war going on. Have no doubt about it. It has been going on for over 40 years while we more or less let it happen. We are about to lose – we, the way we live, everything we believe in, and everything we treasure.

While this is going on, we fall for the distractions: Trump, Bush, Cheney, the other Bush, and even Bill Clinton (talk about the honorable guy with the best intentions ruse).

We also fall for the ruse of having two parties. Mussolini perpetrated that ruse, but he was merely a small-scale dictator. In general, we have two divisions of the same party: Republican and Republican Light. Republican Light has lost most of the country to Republican. Is that a result of extreme stupidity on the part of those we call leaders, or part of the plan? Even the Democratic leaders, such as they are, are pretty much rich folks, so stupidity is not likely.

Action items?

• Spread the word. Trump et al. are not the problem. They are the distraction.
• Spread the word. Read or listen to Dark Money and The Shock Doctrine. If you don’t have time, do it anyway, even if you listen or read ten minutes at a time.
• Spread the word. The last element described in the cited Naomi Klein video is know history. Study history like your life depended on it. It does. Look for the “alternative” sources. For example, some folks consider Roger Stone’s work to be revisionist and conspiracy theory. That’s what we have been taught to think. The material matches much of what I have learned from other sources over the past 55 years and matches what I have more recently learned from other sources. Part of the study of history involves Sun Tsu’s war strategy of know your enemy.
• Spread the word. Learn all you can. Extract knowledge from what the corporate media call news, mostly in the form of generating your own questions about the content. Ask why, then do some research and connect the dots. Keep asking why. Keep connecting the dots.
• Spread the word. Get all of the alternative media information that you can. Guaranteed, it will not match the information you get from corporate media. That’s the point. You’re not supposed to consider alternative media. We’re told that Russia Today is propaganda under the direct control of Putin. We’re supposed to blindly believe that so that we don’t go there to see Chris Hedges (fired for opposing the approved pro war media script in US media), Lee Camp (one of the organize of Occupy Wall Street), Larry King, Thom Hartmann, and others who have an anti-establishment (plutocracy) view. We’re told that opposition to the corporatist policy is actually part of a Russian conspiracy. Russia is teaching us subliminally to do what we are doing, opposing the corporatist system. Yeah, there is pro Russia stuff (just as there is endless pro-American stuff in all of the corporate media sources) If you’re thinking, you see it and question, look for more information and think more about what you know…then question it. Funny, the RT slogan is Question More and we’re not supposed to see their material (maybe because the slogan encourages us to think and question?)
• Spread the word. Organize! The resistance movement we are all part of looks like the French Resistance in the early years of German Occupation, before de Gaulle organized them into a formidable force. Even Indivisible looks like the early French Resistance. We have Indivisible here, indivisible there, indivisible somewhere else, and Indivisible Guide. All of the Indivisibles are theoretically coordinated, but without a single comprehensive means of communication and no definitive leadership. Everyone has Facebook pages and sub-pages, and mailing lists, and websites galore. However, try to follow a subject in this mess, even just locally. La Résistance did better listening to Radio London for code words than we do with lots of advanced technological means of communication that are scattered like Quaker Puffed Wheat, shot from guns.
• Spread the word. We need a single, effective, cohesive plan. That can’t happen until the rest is done. Yes, we need demonstrations and events in the short term. They are more of a morale builder and catalyst for cohesion, like the Doolittle raid on Tokyo in 1942. It had no effect on the outcome of the war except to make Americans think that we were doing something and make the Japanese think that we were thinking about them.

We must make a careful examination of what is going on and connect the dots. There is a lot of finger pointing about the Georgia 6 special election. Ossoff lost because of Democratic strategy. Ossoff lost because the district has always been Republican. Ossoff lost because of his campaigning practices (a photo op with a Muslim group – Really?) More money was spent on that race than any house race in history. Part of their strategy is to bleed us dry. We can’t outspend them, but they want us to try. Their plan is backed up by the Democratic consultants who advise candidates to be Republican Light and throw tons of money at the election. That money goes back to the folks who brought us pay for play politics by way of the corporate media. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr1JStfBfM0)

Meanwhile, Greg Palast (The Best Democracy Money Can Buy) found evidence of election fraud that you won’t hear about anywhere else except alternative sources (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDIF1Opv_yE).

We need action – now. Progressive strategy will not work against the rampant election fraud. Between Gerrymandering and Crosscheck, we virtually cannot win…but we’ll spend a lot of money losing. We need lawsuits, lots of them. We need to sue every state involved in Crosscheck. We need to sue every state party involved in Gerrymandering. We need to sue individuals in charge of voter suppression, the secretaries of state of every state involved. Lawsuits take time. We need to get started NOW! I have made the mistake, in an altruistic fog, of sending lots of campaign money to what now looks like merely the tactics of the well-paid Democratic political consultants. I have nothing against real consultants who have expertise that their clients do not possess. I’m one of them. These political consultants are taking a lot of money to promote a losing strategy – repeatedly. Is the party that stupid, or is it part of the plan? If ACLU or any other group is going to barrage the establishment with lawsuits, I’ll gladly pitch in. At this point, that action will do more than any funds for individual candidates (in most places). That movement must be a concerted, well-organized, nationwide effort.

The rest of the plan must be derived from all of the previous steps in sort of reverse order. Organize. Study all of the information sources, including the ones you are told to ignore. Study History. Question, Question, Question and Question more. Connect the dots. Discuss it using a cohesive nationwide communication medium that we don’t have (get one is part of the plan), and go on from there with developing an effective nationwide strategy that is more effective than shooting water at the smoke that is Trump instead of the fire that is 1% of the population.

-30-

Thos

Comments on Docket EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190

It is easy to claim that regulation is bad. It is much more difficult to defend that statement. Regulatory reform is not a matter to be taken lightly.

EPA was established by Republican Richard M. Nixon, during whose administration the National Environmental Policy Act was passed. NEPA came as a result of several significant events or conditions, including the Santa Barbara oil spill, the conditions in the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls NY, the acid content of rain, particularly on the East Coast, the dangerous condition of the air in the Los Angeles basin, and other such conditions as well as the social engineering associated with freeway construction. As well, in that era, Rachel Carson’s work, published as Silent Spring, made clear the extensive problems caused by poison pesticides.

Regulation has subsequently eliminated or substantially mitigated most of the conditions that led to the passing of NEPA, the Wilderness Act, Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

The environmental concerns that brought about NEPA predate the general awareness of Global Warming / Climate Change. Whether one chooses to believe that well-supported concept or not, the behavior and conditions that brought about the various environmental acts will continue to exist unless limited or eliminated by regulation.

In general, the prevalence of unhealthy air quality, the erosion of structures in the eastern US, and poisonous ground water that cannot be used for domestic purposes or food production has been eliminated or substantially reduced by the environmental laws and the regulations that enforce them. Some may deny the potential effects of human-induced global climate change, but no one can deny the environmental effects that brought about the laws and enforcing regulations in the first place.

One cannot easily determine with accuracy the answer to the general question of whether a regulation eliminates jobs or inhibits job creation. The executive order is vague in that regard. Perhaps a regulation that inhibits employment in one field encourages or generates employment in another field. For example, a substantial reason for the decline of the use of coal as fuel in the US is not due to regulation but rather to market forces. Natural gas has become less expensive than coal for use in power plants. No reduction in the regulation of mining coal will change that. The reduction will result only in returning to the ground water and air quality conditions that brought about the environmental regulations in the first place.

On the other hand, there is substantial employment to be generated in developing new energy sources that are sustainable and non-destructive. We are allowing China to become the world leader in renewable energy and technology. That is inconsistent with the claim that America will be made great again. If we are to be a great nation, we must be a healthy, well educated, innovative nation. Our competitors are. Eliminating environmental regulations in an attempt to bolster industries in decline is contrary to that principle.

As well, there is extensive employment available in the sciences, or there was until the US government decided to eliminate such positions en masse. Such sciences allowed the US to catch and surpass the Soviet Union in the space race. Such sciences brought us, for example, medical advances, communication advances, data processing advances, and automobiles that are less deadly for the occupants when involved in a collision.

There is also substantial employment in environmental cleanup services. There are two elements involved. First is the cleanup of pollution that occurred before regulation brought the practices causing it to stop. There are over 1,300 such sites in the US. The second is employment in preventing, mitigating, and cleanup of spills that occur in the era of environmental regulation.

The question is then, in answer to this vague statement, whether the purpose of this point the preservation of industries that are in decline, regardless of regulations, and the associated jobs rather than the promotion of jobs in other fields. If the purpose is to promote industries that are in decline, the purpose of the action is invalid.

Determination of whether a regulation is outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective is a vague requirement. The absence or limited incidence of behavior or activity prohibited by a regulation does not render the regulation outdated or unnecessary. That absence demonstrates the effectiveness of the regulation. No one would consider locking a building or vehicle to be unnecessary because there has been no unauthorized access to the building or the vehicle. The behavior that caused the regulation, or in the instant example, the securing of the building or vehicle, has been eliminated only by the action taken to prevent it. That behavior will return, given the opportunity.

The determination of whether a regulation is outdated or ineffective should be based upon whether it results in the effect specified or intended in the law that the regulation enforces or implements. For example, if a regulation specifies a procedure that was best practice at the time of writing but is now not, the regulation should be revised, probably to a performance rather than procedural specification. Discontinuing the pursuit of the condition that the law states or intends to address is inappropriate. If a regulation is ineffective, the proper action is not to eliminate the regulation, but rather to determine in what manner and why the regulation fails to implement the underlying law, then implement an effective regulation.

Determination of whether costs exceed benefits is vague inasmuch as there is no indication that this determination must be objective. If the cost of a regulation is measured only against the profits of a polluting industry, the determination is inappropriate. A great many public works in the US had enormous cost that cannot be directly associated with benefits. However, no one can deny that the interstate highway system and the air traffic control system have enormous benefits that cannot be directly related to the cost of implementation.

Determination of cost and benefit must be objective and universal. For example, the cost of health care in the US is generating substantial controversy both in the costs themselves and in how to effectively provide the care underlying the cost. Determining the benefit of regulations that limit or eliminate the pollution that has in the past caused extensive disease must include the cost of the loss of productivity due to disease and the cost of health care for those effected. The benefit calculation must also include the employment of those whose livelihood is related to enforcement of the regulation or mitigation of the result of violation, and the profit of industries that are involved.

As well, the secondary industries enabled or supported by environmental regulation must be considered in the cost benefit determination. Elimination of land, water, and air pollution provides a substantial benefit to the outdoor recreation and tourism industries. Those industries also generate secondary employment in the production of recreational vehicles and equipment and in the transportation associated with travel to the recreational areas that might be affected by the elimination of environmental regulations.

The calculation of cost and benefit must be objective and subject to public comment as part of the proposed rulemaking.

Determination of whether a regulation creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies is also vague. The appropriate question is straightforward. Does the regulation implement or enforce law as determined by an objective examination of the letter and intent of the law? If policies are contrary to the law the regulation implements or enforces, the policy is irrelevant. If initiatives and policies are inconsistent with law, the Congress, not the executive branch must act.

All government data and activity, whether conducted by or for the government, must be publicly available (with the exception of matters of national security), so that part of the order is irrelevant. Properly conducted scientific research must clearly state the methods and must be reproducible. It seems that eliminating scientific positions in government is already inconsistent with this portion of the order. As well, elimination of public access to the data is inconsistent with this part of the order. The public, which includes those competent in the sciences, must not need to rely on the Freedom Of Information Act to obtain data produced by or for the government, but a substantial number of people are prepared to do so if necessary.

If an executive order relates to implementation or enforcement of the letter or intent of law, it cannot simply be eliminated by executive order. That is the domain of Congress. Therefore, the last element of the order is also vague and potentially inconsistent with law.

The agency must bear in mind that those who are affected by environmental regulation are the entire US population. US environmental regulations also affect other countries, particularly those what share a border with the US: Canada and Mexico. Air and water pollution in the US is not and cannot be contained by borders.

in the Indivisible North Seattle Environmental Group Facebook page, I was asked:

I voted for the Sound Transit 3 expansion in the hope that it would allow me (and countless others) to get rid of our car-fueled commutes. The author of this piece, a former Secretary of Transportation for WA State, brings up the unfortunate issue of the emissions during the construction process of the train lines. Thomas White, can you shed any light on this issue of carbon savings versus carbon cost?

which was generated by the content of this op-ed article

The response is too large for a Facebook post, so here it is:

The ST3 discussion is not simple. The numbers are what they are, but the article isn’t really objective.

> “What is the scale of the negative carbon effects from all the construction activities to built big concrete-and-steel intensive projects years before any benefits at all might offset those greenhouse gas assaults?”

> “But we do know from other Sound Transit projects that the construction carbon impacts are huge: 60,000 or more metric tons of emissions just for construction activities alone, not counting concrete and steel manufacture, for the short light-rail construction from Northgate to Lynnwood that is already scheduled.”

The alternative to rail is highway. Highways are massive structures of concrete and steel. Highways require the dedication of vast amounts of land, much greater than rail for the same capacity. Highways are not as safe as rail, leading to additional use of motor vehicles for police, fire, ambulance, and cleanup. Since there are 2.5 million highway collision injuries every year, highways contribute substantially to hospital construction and maintenance. Yes, we need police and fire services, but highways generate much more of their own need for these services than rail transit does.

A significant element of ST3 carbon emission is the bus service. The primary advantage to bus service is the ability to establish service quickly on existing roads. In that case, there is virtually no construction-related carbon footprint. However, transit buses are typically overweight (more weight per axle than allowed) vehicles. Transit buses get an exception. A truck driver with transit bus axle loading would be stopped at a weigh station and not be allowed to continue. This condition generates an additional carbon footprint for road repair when they operate on existing roads.

Bus transit advocates cite the routing flexibility of buses. However, there are limitations to the streets are routed over, based on lane width, roadway width, pavement strength, and configuration of intersections to allow turning of vehicles of that length.

Roads that are built for transit buses, including Bus Rapid Transit busways, are built with the additional structure needed to support transit bus axle loading. The roadway requires fewer repairs generated by overweight vehicles. That is a matter of pay up front or pay later.

The bus component of ST3 involves substantial highway construction. That is the strategy that was used in passing the original Sound Transit program. The original ST ballot measure in 1996 involved Everett – Tacoma light rail within a decade and extensive commuter rail service between Everett and Lakewood. That measure failed, as did the Westlake Avenue parkway (called the Champs-Élysées of Seattle) and the new baseball stadium the Mariners demanded as bag money to prevent them from packing up and leaving town. The baseball stadium initiative failure was considered an emergency for which the Legislature called a special session to arrange funding. Sound Transit changed their proposal to give the voters what they wanted: more highways. Bus transit became the basis for extensive road construction.

One day over a decade ago (during the initial Sound Transit configuration), I rode a Sounder train from Tacoma to Seattle. I had to return to Tacoma on a Sound Transit express bus. There was no rail service for the return trip. To occupy the time, I used the Sound Transit timetable book to do some transit analysis. There were 53 individual Sound Transit buses competing with the (much less extensive) Sound Transit rail service between Seattle and Tacoma. The people want roads; they get roads. People want roads because of the propaganda telling them how cool they will be in the car that everyone takes off their sunglasses to stare at them driving.

That story is an old story. The US government has been competing with railroads for almost a century. Highway and air transport are heavily subsidized by the government. The US government ran most of the eastern US railroads out of business in the 50s – 70s with air, highway, and marine competition. Ultimately, they did the same to about half of the Western US railroads. Amtrak is one of the results of that competition and running railroads out of business, salvaging a bare minimum, not quite sufficient to be effective passenger rail service as a token gesture. Amtrak is under annual threat of elimination, and has been by virtually every Congress and Administration for almost 40 years. One need only go as far as Enumclaw (The Courier-Herald, May 2 2017) to find an op-ed article advocating the elimination of Amtrak as a national system. Investment of public money in rail transit, outside of the major cities of the east, is a relatively new phenomenon. Even more rare is the investment in private railroad infrastructure in order to operate passenger service, such as the Washington State Amtrak Cascades service.

Collusion of oil and auto related industries to eliminate rail “competition” has been powerful. General Motors and Firestone were involved in a scheme, over 60 years ago, to purchase electric street railways, dismantle them, and sell buses to city transit agencies. In Chicago, for example, this transition created a condition of more vehicles providing less service. Americans are indoctrinated into their preference for and admiration of anything on roads. This article is more of the same.

Part of the enormous cost of ST3 is rooted in the delay involved in building an effective urban transit solution. Even 1996 was a late start, but the Puget Sound region was in love with cars, just as they had been taught to be. Seattle built a really fine subway for Atlanta over 40 years ago. There was a Federal transit grant for Seattle. The ST, ST2, and ST3 programs could have been built 45 years ago with less disruption, less cost, and greater effect, but Seattle told the Federal government no thanks. The money went to Atlanta.

Los Angeles and the San Francisco bay area learned the hard way. Both had extensive electric rail transit systems. Those systems were dismantled and replaced with bus service. Within about a decade in the Bay Area and a little later in Los Angeles, plans to restore electric rail service were being developed. Of course, the cost of building a system anew in lieu of upgrading the existing system that had been dismantled was substantially greater (as was the carbon footprint), but it was a boon for folks who build things out of concrete and steel.

Face it. The presence of a vast number of people is not environmentally friendly in the first place. Part of that environmental effect is found in mobility, which is a fundamental requirement of society. The more advanced the society, the greater the need for mobility and the greater the environmental impact of people. There have been advocates of abandoning motor vehicles for horses. Using horses for transportation of vast numbers of people has a great environmental impact. In the late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries, horses in the large Eastern cities were a significant environmental problem, substantially including dead horses in the streets and, of course, the solid and liquid emissions generated by the conversion of energy in hay to propulsion energy.

Rail transportation has the inherent advantage of very low friction. Part of the propulsion energy of a vehicle must overcome friction before inertia can be overcome. Highway vehicles depend upon friction. The greater friction of rubber on pavement over steel on steel is required in order to prevent undesired lateral motion and to effect steering.

Electric trains have the further advantage of regeneration. When braking, the energy being taken out of the train is directed into the propulsion power system (by turning the electric motors into generators) for the benefit of other trains rather than dissipating into the atmosphere as heat.

High speed electric trains, the Bullet Trains as Americans love to call them, require more energy than conventional trains. That is a simple matter of physics. Going faster requires more energy. Those trains operate at much higher speeds than would be possible (or at least practical) for highway transport. A high speed train uses 4% of the energy per passenger mile at 200 mph than an automobile at 60 mph.  They require only about 25% of the energy required for air travel. The friction encountered by airplanes at high altitude is small. However, the friction encountered at the low altitudes on the way to and from high altitude is greater, as is the energy required to oppose gravity when lifting the plane from the ground.

The biggest problem with ST3, beyond the extensive reliance on buses, is the time that is needed for construction. I really don’t know the reason, other than they can’t spend the money faster than it comes in (which is a function of building what should have been built in 1975 in 2017+). As a comparison, the 7.8 mile long Cascade Tunnel, on the BNSF route between Everett and Wenatchee (if you have ridden the Amtrak Empire Builder, you have gone through it) was constructed in three years, using the technology of the time (1925-1929): horses, manpower, explosives, and steam drills. Northern Pacific constructed today’s BNSF line between Tacoma and Vancouver WA, 136 miles, in about six years, using the technology of the 1908-1914 era.

Without discussion of the entire circumstances that have generated the numbers used in the article, I consider it just more oil industry propaganda.

Yeah, I know. This is long and there is a lot in it. The subject is not simple. This is as simple as I can make it and convey the information. Simplification of a complex subject is often a way of manipulating opinion about the subject.

The United States is experiencing a change that is causing many people concern. The President is a loose cannon, steered by a white supremacist “Assistant to the President.”

There have been a lot of radical changes in government policy and action in just the first two months of the Trump administration. There are distinct signs that we may be in for a much greater, unpleasant, and even frightening change. If the direction is not changed soon, we may be experiencing the last breaths of American Democracy. The path to dictatorship has been widened, straightened, and paved. It’s starting to look like a freeway.

Surely, it can’t happen here, can it? Dictators overthrow the government in a military coup, right? That can’t happen here. We have checks and balances. We have the Constitution. Military forces pledge loyalty to the constitution.

It can, and the warning signs are obvious, provided that one is aware of history. The limited knowledge of history and government that is provided by public schools in the US ensures that not many are aware of history. That is not a coincidence.

That dictators always arise from a military takeover is a misconception. Dictators also rise to power as a result of democratic elections.

• Hitler: Elected.
• Mussolini: Elected.
• Mugabe: Elected.
• Marcos: Elected.
• Chávez: Elected.
• Assad: Elected.

There is a pattern among such rises to power.

• Become popular by making promises to vastly improve the life of the citizens.
• Promise to make the nation great or return it to greatness.
• Increase military power at the expense of domestic spending.
• Pursue unending military conflict against enemies, being sure to continually develop a supply of enemies.
• Limit or take over the press (media in current terms).
• Consolidate political power by directly or indirectly merging opposing parties, parties that started to look alike and act alike until they were actually or virtually merged until there was a single party offering a single candidate in elections.
• Limit elections or those who could vote.
• Limit the effectiveness of education.
• Legislate by edict.
• Promote racial, ethnic, and ideological hatred.

What is happening now in the US extends before and beyond Trump and Bannon. The change has been insidious, and through complacency, ignorance, or laziness, we have allowed the conditions that have transformed the path to dictatorship into a freeway.

I think I know exactly what they don’t want us to see. What is so mysterious that we all wonder what ties could there possibly be to Russia? What abomination could have corrupted our national purity? Could it be that we just do not get it yet, that the machine that drives corruption there is the same machine as here, the same as in Africa and the Middle East, in Latin America and Asia and Europe, the same that invested in Nazi Germany’s war, modern decades of empire building and violent regime change, the same that foments chaos everywhere to justify going in to squelch it, and then contracts out the appearance of fixing the destruction it caused?  When will we recognize this insidious heist pulled over and over again, that hides behind business as usual, with government complicity?

Under our noses, as citizens dutifully question collusion of top government officials, corporate giants Bayer and Monsanto, Dow and DuPont, plan mergers to totally take over our food supply, we’re talking globally. Note the alarm sounding one of many predicted side effects; with these mergers we will see the certain demise of the already depleted worldwide populations of bees plus attendant devastations of our whole ecology as we know it, global ecology.

Eisenhower saw the machine, Bernie Sanders sees it, Oliver Stone wrote a twelve-part series on it. Certainly Noam Chomsky and Rachel Carson, Chris Hedges and Cornel West and countless others have tried to educate us. US corporations invested in Germany in WWII: Ford, General Motors, DuPont, IBM, Pfizer, Standard Oil, Wall Street. While we are worrying about Trump’s hotels, luncheons, and personal dossiers, do we notice which multinational corporate deals are currently on the table?

We shouldn’t need to be reminded that pipeline, fracking, mining, chemical, pharma, insurance, prison, and weapons industries don’t thrive only within the purview of one political party; clearly their agendas cross the isle as often as possible. The parties are in collusion to the extent that money can be made, favors granted and objectives obscured.  Candidates on both sides are funded by the same corporations that drive the destruction we protest.

The machine rides roughshod over all concerns about civil justice and sustainability. It cares nothing about us, our wetlands, forest or coral reef habitats, disabilities or gender crises, culture or arts, health or seniors or kids, wolf pups, monarchs or bees. It uses religion and race, division and chaos, consumerism, poverty and fear to distract us while it takes what it wants, erases opposition, writes its next war narrative, contracts the weapons and taxes the poor to pay for it.

Beware that the politics tend to obscure the deals going down.

Loyalty to a person, a party, an ideology, a concept, or a source is a position of simple comfort that does not require thinking.

Those who demand loyalty know this.

-30-

Thos

It’s called Oath of Office or Oath of Enlistment. It’s just a bunch of words that one needs to say in order to get a Really Good Job…or is it?

The words have some variation among the Really Good Jobs that use them, such as the President, members of Congress, members of the military, state Governors, state Legislators, appointed government officials, and some police officers. Typically, however, the Oath of Office contains the concept, if not the exact words, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

A quick look at one source of definitions reveals:

en·e·my

noun

1. a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
2. a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.
3. a thing that harms or weakens something else.

The someone or something in definitions 1 and 3 applies to the American public and what we have come to know as the American way of life (even if leaving out the American Dream, which has already been decimated).

Given that definition, we find that protecting against all enemies is not limited to some other country that the government has declared to be an enemy so that military action can be pursued. Enemy can include

• Those who pursue the elimination of environmental protection,
• Those who pursue the elimination of public education,
• Those who pursue the elimination of the general availability of healthcare,
• Those who pursue the elimination of social services and programs that have generally benefited society and contributed to what we know as the American way of life,
• Those who pursue the limitation of the ability of journalists to report on the activities of the government,
• Those who pursue the violent repression of dissenting viewpoints,
• Those who pursue voter suppression and/or other means of election fraud,
• Those who use their government positions to accumulate personal wealth.

Those acts are either directly in violation of the constitution or by definition are enemy actions. Both are covered by the oath of office of many government positions, including the military.

The Oath of Office is generally treated as the pro forma words needed to get a Really Good Job. However, violation of the oath of office is, in many cases, literally a crime.

The application of the words in the Oath of Office is not limited to the individuals perpetrating unconstitutional or enemy (be definition) acts. Protect and defend includes doing anything possible to prevent others from violating the constitution. The roughly 4,000 US military veterans who went to Standing Rock to help protect the Native American and other protestors against the police and mercenary forces involved in the illegal construction of a pipeline, illegal suppression of speech, illegal suppression of journalism, and so on, were being true to their oath. Most of them who said anything publicly said exactly that.

The application of the Oath of Office applies to those in government and the military who sit idly by while police brutalize and even kill civilians, prevent expression of ideas (e.g., protest movements), obstruct and limit the freedom of journalists to document the activity of the government and government agencies, ignore existing laws in order to promote private infrastructure projects, imprison political opponents without charge or on false charges, imprison political opponents in cruel conditions, and so on. This is all happening now, all around us.

We must hold all of our elected and appointed officials, regardless of party affiliation, accountable for the crime of violation of the Oath of Office whenever possible. This applies not only to those who are engaged in the unconstitutional activities. It applies to those who see and know about the unconstitutional activities and to the activities the fall under the definition of enemy and fail to do anything about it.

We pay our elected officials quite well in exchange for their faithful execution of their duties, which includes those contained in the Oath of Office. That 4,000 military veterans have the integrity to do so on their own, without the benefit of a Really Good Job (which, in terms of government positions, they never had in the first place), and even give up their not so good jobs in order to participate in an action against enemies, as required by their oath, under harsh conditions, is remarkable. Why do we not expect those we pay to fulfill the Oath of Office to do so?

Insist on that protection against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Demand accountability and compliance!

-30-

Thos