A Gallon of Gas and a Barrel of Oil

The true cost of a gallon of gas is tied to the cost of a barrel of oil. As the price of a barrel of oil rises, the cost of a gallon of gas rises. However, when the cost of a barrel of oil declines, it never falls back to its original starting point, which means the cost of gas will only temporally fall. After a brief decline, the cost of a barrel of oil will spike again and the gas price will increase to meet the new spike.

The 2008 high price of a barrel of oil was $147.30, and the high price for a gallon of gas was $4. Then when the cost of a barrel of oil fell to $30.28, the price of a gallon of gas fell to $1.64. The cost of a barrel of oil traded between $20 - 30 in 2003 at which time the average cost of a gallon of gas was $1.64. However, the cost of a barrel of oil continued to rise to the previous mentioned 2008 levels. Both 2009 and 2010 prices rose in response to increased oil prices, and 2011 is only in its first quarter and prices have begun to rise. As of February 27, 2011, gas prices have already reached $3.38 a gallon and a barrel of oil is at $97.88. When a barrel of oil reaches $147 again, then what will the gas price be?

What does all of this mean to the average consumer? What does it means to future energy prices? Why are the oil prices in such rapid increases?

All of those questions are tied to the diminishing supply of crude oil. Oil is getting more difficult to extract, and the cost of refining it is rising. However, the U.S. government is still subsidizing oil companies while they reap huge profits.

Therefore, the future of oil and gas prices will see an ever increasing rate, the consumer will have to modify their habits to keep their costs down, and, ultimately, the true cost of oil use will have to be accounted for. The true cost will force rapid change or the entire collapse of the U.S. economy.

High Speed Rail and Other Transportation Choices

According to MetroPlan Orlando, the 2030 LRTP was amended by the MetroPlan Orlando Board on November 10, 2010 to add the Orlando to Tampa high speed rail project.  Because high speed rail will be built within existing right-of-way on Interstate 4, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determined that an amendment to MetroPlan Orlando's 2030 Long Range Transportation plan was necessary.  Prior to board adoption, MetroPlan Orlando conducted a public hearing on the amendment and provided a summary of comments to the board.

High speed rail was not included in the 2030 Plan when it was originally adopted in August 2009 because it was not considered financially feasible at that time.  Since then, federal funding has become available and the project is moving forward.  Construction will be completed in phases and is expected to create approximately nine thousands jobs during peak construction. After the project is built, it is expected to provide 700-1000 permanent jobs working on operations and maintenance on the Orlando to Tampa line.

According to Myregion.org, through surveys, meetings, blogs, and other conversations, Central Florida’s residents, business leaders, and elected officials overwhelmingly embrace a future that is different than our current path. A future in which the Central Florida region is recognized as a world-class place to live, learn, work, and play. A future where people with diverse backgrounds and talents come together to enhance a global economy that rivals the greatest cities in the world. A future where the natural beauty and other amenities that are unique to our region are enjoyed by all. A future in which Central Florida consumes less land, preserves more precious environmental resources, creates more distinctive places to live in both rural and urban areas, and provides choices for how people travel.

I personally attended and participated in the meetings of Myregion.org as well as meetings in Winter Park by the citizens, and at all those meetings the majority of the people overwhelmingly supported more pedestrian/bicycle/public buses/rail options for commuting. Both traffic planners and citizens alike have discovered through simple observation that a policy of continued road widening and expansion will not solve traffic woes. Why do hard right wingers continue to bash freedom of transportation choices while they cling mindlessly to an auto-only approach to transportation? Are they attempting to force everyone to drive automobiles? Do they want to ban walking and bicycling? Do they wish to use the lest cost-effective approach to solving transportation problems? Do they have any solutions to fix the decaying and highly tax funded automobile transportation system?

Meanwhile, what are our other public officials doing? Are they getting out of cars and using other transportation options, or are they simply talking the talk and not walking the walk?

Here are the facts:
1) It costs money for all types of mechanized transportation systems.
2) All transportation systems should be compared on the basis of completely built systems. In other words, from start to finish and accounting for all direct and indirect costs, in today’s money, how much does each cost to build, maintain, and operate?
3) All systems should be compared on the basis of which is more easily maintained.

Americans need to wake up and find out the facts. Can the United States continue to fund automobiles, highways, bridges, overpasses, parking lots, fossil fuels, ethanol use, and all the accidents, traffic police, and related expenses? Or should Americans adopt a more reasonable policy of mixed transportation that expand freedoms of choice?

Governor Rick Scott: Unrealistic View of High Speed Rail

Governor Rick Scott has an unrealistic view of the transportation trends in the present moment and those that will shape the future. First, it shows a total lack of foresight to kill high speed rail in Florida, because a large portion of the population supports rail-based travel and other public transportation options that free them from having to drive a car.

Secondly, gas prices are on the rise again, and ultimately gas will become too costly for frugal and reasonable commuters. Third, the majority of people oppose investing in more interstate and highway widening projects which only serve to increase sprawl and damage natural ecosystems. Fourth, worldwide trends show that public transportation is the fastest growing transportation market.

Fifth, over the long term, high speed rail and other mass transit options will pay for their selves while the cost of an automobile transportation economy will only wreck the economy. President Obama just bailed out the auto industry, the tax payers shoulder all the cost of road projects, and the big oil companies take tax breaks while they raise gas prices.

I don’t know where Governor Scott gets his math figures. It does not add up, because the auto-oil-road system is in decline, heavily subsidized, and still its failing to solve the transportation woes of the average commuter. Metro Orlando spends almost a billion dollars a year on transportation infrastructure and most of it goes to support road projects. None of that money accounts for the other indirect costs to average commuters, developers, and tax payers that support all the indirect expenses of a flawed system that is already overbuilt.

Governor Scott should also factor in the cost of parking lots to consumers, traffic police to monitor cars, fuel costs, automobile insurance, and car payments. And lastly, perhaps the Governor ought to consider that many people do not like to drive, don’t like all the ugly highways and parking lots invading our natural space of Florida, and the stench of car exhaust as well as the unending noise from millions of cars.

Test Your Elected Official: Green or Not?

This analysis is used with the Formula of Sustainable Design and the following scoring system:

Each question has a possible score of 1 - 3 points.

a = 1

b = 2

c = 3

Answer all the questions, then add score together and compare to this scale:

20 = Basic Green

21 - 39 = Limited Green

40 - 59 = Non Green

60 = Anti Green

Question One:

On energy policy, supports:

a) Only renewable energy (solar, wind, water).

b) Any domestic energy.

c) Any energy.

Question Two:

On buildings/home standards, supports:

a) LEED/ENERGY STAR requirements.

b) Minimal requirements.

c) No requirements.

Question Three:

On trade, supports:

a) True Resource Efficiency Model.

b) Any domestic trade.

c) Ant type of trade.

Question Four:

On overall transportation policy, supports:

a) Mixed use transportation which includes walkable cities, rails, bicycles, buses, and small personal electric vehicles.

b) Any type of transportation.

c) Primarily automobile oriented.

Question Five:

On road building, supports:

a) Limits to new construction.

b) Lax limits to road construction.

c) No limits to new roads.

Question Six:

On High Speed Rails, Maglevs, and commuter rails, supports:

a) U.S. and regional networks.

b) Some limited building of rails.

c) No rails.

Question Seven:

On air travel, supports:

a) Reduced air travel and infrastructure.

b) Maintianing 2010 levels.

c) Increased air travel and infrastructure.

Question Eight:

On current transportation infrastructure, supports:

a) Redesigning and restoring infrastructure to be more sustainable via mixed use policies.

b) Minor repairs and upgrades to existing infrastructure.

c) No repairs or upgrades to infrastructure.

Question Nine:

On the automobile industry, supports:

a) No tax payer funding.

b) Limited funding to auto industry.

c) Complete funding to auto industry.

Question Ten:

On recycling, supports:

a) Recycling of all waste.

b) Limited recycling.

c) No recycling.

Question Eleven:

On logging, supports:

a) Sustainable forestry.

b) Any type of logging.

c) Only unsustainable forestry.

Question Twelve:

On overall material resource use, supports:

a) Closed loop system.

b) Partial closed loop and open system.

c) Open system.

Question Thirteen:

On manufacturing, supports:

a) Regional manufacturing.

b) Limited domestic manufacturing.

c) No domestic manufacturing.

Question Fourteen:

On water use, supports:

a) The Polybranched Feed/Drain System.

b) Some water conservation methods.

c) No conservation.

Question Fifteen:

On mining, supports:

a) Extremely limited mining.

b) Limited mining regulations.

c) No regulations.

Question Sixteen:

On oil drilling, supports:

a) Eliminating oil drilling and exploration.

b) Limits to oil drilling and exploration.

c) No limits to oil drilling and exploration.

Question Seventeen:

On species conservation, supports:

a) Extensive conservation efforts.

b) Limited conservation.

c) No conservation.

Question Eighteen:

On ecosystem preservation, supports:

a) Extensive conservation efforts.

b) Limited conservation efforts.

c) No conservation.

Question Nineteen:

On living wages, supports:

a) A living wage for all workers.

b) Some workers entitled to living wage.

c) No living wage.

Question Twenty:

On farming and food production, supports:

a) Only organic farming.

b) Any type of farming.

c) Only factory farming.

Political Discourse

The government is in disarray, so I want to start a political discussion based on these questions:

On issues, can we find view points which are not liberal or conservative or some variation of the two? I mean, can we find solutions outside of the far right, the far left and the compromises between the two? Is it possible that sometimes the Democrats are correct and some times the Republicans are correct? Is it also possible that they both can be wrong on some issues? Is it possible that sometimes a compromise between the two is suitable and sometimes neither party nor a compromise will solve the dilemma?

This is what I'm trying to find out... can we think and act without a particular party affiliation? Maybe practical politics should out weigh ideological politics. Are you willing to find out that maybe the political system is out dated and needs to be overthrown? Would the founding fathers of the U.S. recognize the political beast we have today as their creation? Would they advocate something different than the Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Tea Party?

Are you willing to dismiss the parties until you can find out by the facts and not the rhetoric? Are you willing to take a cold hard look at the politicians and the party advocates and question them on the facts rather than the ideology? Are you willing to consider that the baby boomers are out of touch with the present situation? Are you willing to consider the time has come for a new generation of leadership needs to arise?

Political Concepts and the People's Rights

Political theorists recognize that governments are concepts of the human will and intellect. They exist to serve society's needs and desires for improvement. Therefore, those concepts must evolve to meet the demands of the times.

Political concepts of the People:
1) A person's geographic place of birth does not limit or determine a person's political destiny.
2) Political entities, including states, organizations and parties exist to serve the people.
3) All political entities are subject to revision, reform or complete change by the people.
4) Citizenship is a concept and is subject to change by the person not by the government.
5) A person determines their allegiance to a political entity rather than their place of birth or dwelling place.
6) A person is not bound by the government or their agreements with other governments.
7) The people have authority over the government and may dismantle it at will.
8) Every person has equal political power.

The Centrist's Strategy

The centrist’s political strategy takes advantage of the primary weakness of the two party system. The primary weakness is polarization by the left and right. The basic situation can be assessed by observing the positions of parties and voters.

As far as parties are concerned; The Democrats occupy the position from center to far left. The Republicans occupy the position from center to far right. Independents occupy the position from mid left to mid right. Various third parties occupy positions from far left to far right, depending on their specific ideology.

As far as voters are concerned; the far left is composed of ultra liberals, communist, socialist and related views. The far right is composed of ultra conservatives, extreme examples of free market, and religious radicals. Numerically speaking, both the far left and far right are small compared to the vast majority of the center.

Polarization is a process that the far left and far right have imposed on the majority, and the first step to stopping it is to understand it. It is fairly simple to understand. The polarization of politics occurs when one side takes a stance on an issue, and then the other side takes the complete opposite stance to distinguish its self from the other party. The Republicans and Democrats do this all the time. This, then, sets a precedence which both the Independents and other Third Parties fall right in line with.

For example, under the polarizing method the Democrats state a position on an issue. Then the Republicans take the complete opposite. Next, the Independents have three choices:
1) Side with the Democrats.
2) Side with the Republicans.
3) Make a compromise between the two.
Finally, the other third parties take their cue from their position they occupy along the political line from left to right. In other words, a third party on the far left will take the Democrats view to the most extreme.

The Polarizing Strategy leaves little room for creative problem solving or fresh consideration of issues. It makes debates over issues very narrow minded and excludes many practical ways to resolve issues and conflicts.

The centrist approach differs by non-polarized politics and the willingness to concede to any party on a particular issue if they have the superior solution. However, the centrist will stand firm whenever it has the best method or solution to an issue. The centrist will not support endless debates or pass and repeal legislation tactics. This strategy will strengthen the center by enabling voters to coalesce around mutually conceived political policies.

A New Tax Code

The current tax system and the I.R.S. contain too many flaws. The chief flaws are:
1) Too much taxation.
2) Too many types of taxes.
3) Tax structure and filing system is unwieldy, too complex, and too costly.
4) Everyone is treated differently according to the tax code which leads to unfair assessments by the I.R.S.
5) Too many loopholes for corporations to evade taxes or reduce their taxation while the people pay high income, property, and sales taxes.

Various alternatives have been proposed to fix the system and each of those have their own set of problems. I will not waste time elaborating those here. The only sound, durable and simple system is a straight 10% tax plan. This plan has these elements:
1) All wage earners, regardless if they are a company or person, is treated exactly the same. In other words, everyone pays 10% of all gross income, nothing more and nothing less.
2) No sales or property taxes.
3) No need for the I.R.S., because the code is simplified, and therefore, it does not require a huge organization to administrate it.
4) No need to pay taxes and then file at tax time. Taxes are paid once and you are done with it.
5) The government cannot raise or create new taxes. The government must then learn to be frugal with what it has, or if it wants to raise additional revenues, then it has to figure out how to help it citizens earn extra gross income.

Goals of the Centrist

Goals of the Centrist:
1) To express sustainable/green political policies.
2) To express new political concepts.
3) To refine old political concepts.
4) To educate the general reader.
5) To create a cell of political leaders active in spreading sustainable concepts.
6) To elect a body of representatives in accord with sustainable concepts.
7) To drive both Republicans and Democrats out of office.
8) To create an international state encompassing North America, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.

Simplify Political Campaigns

U.S. campaigns are too complex and unfair for everyone to get a chance to serve in office. Campaigns are corrupt and driven by special interests. All these things can be changed by simplifying campaigns.

These are the major goals:

1)      Reducing campaign costs.

2)      Eliminate misinformation.

3)      Simplify who can be a candidate and how they register.

4)      Restrict the type of ads that can be run.

Candidates should not play the media. They should be required to announce two years in advance if they are going to run for office. This would give all voters plenty of time to find out more about the person. Also, it will eliminate all the speculation and media hype about whether or not someone is planning to run. This will make politicians more sober and thoughtful about the future, which is an important quality of a lawmaker.

A simple filing system online should be used to register to run for office. Each person running for office will have a free website that they can easily use to display their positions and record on issues. All basic issues will be covered, and voters can pull up profiles and comparisons of each candidate. A voter can also create a voter profile and compare each candidate with their own positions on issues. If a voter is undecided, then they can read a candidates blog, audio feed or videos that are accessible via their profile.