So, the latest information out of Washington is that the National Park Service is considering an increase in fees associated with private vehicles, starting in 2018. Why all of a sudden. Certainly, as I've written about before, our parks are getting quite popular to the point where they're considering requiring reservations for entry. I get it. Too many people in the park ruins the experience for everyone. That said, they're also looking to increase the fee from $30/car to $70 at the most popular parks, and beginning Monday, they've opened a comment portal so that the public can weigh in.
Why such a dramatic hike?
Math. The reason is math. Trump's proposed budget cuts about $1.5 Billion (with a B) from the Department of the Interior. Also, the Trump Administration is considering the removal of approximately 4,000 jobs from the Department. That's not to say that the work won't get done, but like many businesses, there's a theory that if you hire contractors for the same work that used to be performed by salaried employees, it'll cost you less in the long run because you're not paying benefits. That is, until the contractors start bending the government over and start charging them through the...well, let's keep this polite.
Here's the math. The National Park Service releases annual visitor information for the top 10 most visited parks. The following qualify: Acadia, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Rocky Mountain, Olympic, Yellowstone, Yosemite and Zion. Using data from 2014-2016, each park has averaged a 112% increase over the previous year. It's safe to assume 2017 will look similarly. For those playing the home game, and for these 10 parks, that's 33.1 million visitors in 2014, 36.9 million in 2015, and 4.14 million in 2016.
Now, the Trump Administration plans to reduce funding to DoI from $13.2 Billion to $11.7 Billion. Using the 112% to extrapolate both 2017 and then to 2018 (when increases should hit), assuming that 90% of visitors use private vehicles (some estimates are higher than that), the jump from $30/car to $70/car would increase Park revenues by $1.66 in just those parks...more than the proposed cut by the White House.
So, the question is, do they need it. Arguably, yes, in my estimation we can't spend enough on our National Parks. And this data is just from the 10 most visited. Revenues will be far higher than what I'm back-of-the-napkin calculating here. However, there are some questions: is it fair to me and am I being billed twice? That depends. We as Americans have always financed our National Park system through a mix of local spending and Federal taxes. And, as the new Tax plan rears its ugly head, and NJ residents look to take it on the chin based on our ridiculous property taxes (Thank you Love Gov for not helping with that!), then, technically, paying more Federal taxes and then paying a higher entrance fee does mean that you're paying twice. That's a personal gripe. What's more, I can afford it, and the price hike won't deter me and my family from visiting. Take my money. National Parks rule! But what about lower income Americans? Will this price them out from a visit? We won't know until 2018 demographic information is released...sometime in 2020. National Geographic reports that there has been, in recent years, increased diversity in both the employee and visitor populations. Will this decline? Only time will tell.
In the meantime, you as the American public have an opportunity to put your two cents in. The NPS has activated a comment portal, and if this is important to you, I would encourage you to weigh in...especially since the White House plans on reducing the size of National Monuments or using them for non-renewable resource exploration. And, places like Glacier may have to change their name after Global Warming is through with them, because that's a thing and signs cost money.
The National Park formally known as Glacier? Doesn't have the same ring and is way longer.
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Friday, October 20, 2017
It's a gas gas gas.
I will admit to taking advantage of fossil fuels. My house is heated with oil. We have a gas range. I don't own a hybrid car and so am dependent on gasoline to get from A to B. I use plastics. But, despite my habits, I fully understand that fossil fuels are a limited resource. How can they not be? We are finding and exploiting materials that are absolutely finite in the short term. We are using way too much of it too quickly for it to be sustainable, and scientists agree that it takes thousands of years if not hundreds of thousands of years to replenish the supply cache we are already tapped into. That's just science.
It makes sense to find an alternative. And, luckily that riddle has been solved. With the expectation that "nothing is perfect" we are getting better and better at harnessing wind and solar power. There have been advances at using the tides to generate energy, and also technologies which are making geothermal heating a reality.
Why does this matter? There's a couple of reasons. Economically, it would be great to be energy independent. As our current President makes trading with the United States less palatable, our dependencies on foreign energy suppliers exposes a weakness, one that can be used to manipulate markets. During Obama's presidency, and likely due to policies adopted by his predecessors as well, Forbes reported that U.S. dependence on foreign oil has hit a 30-year low. Unfortunately, this isn't because we're using less of it, but more of a fact that we're producing more of our own at a steep environmental cost. Yesterday, this:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democrats on Thursday failed to pass a measure to block oil and gas drilling in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, losing to Republicans who believe production there would provide jobs and wealth."
Our government will likely subsidize exploration, i.e. pay a private firm to dig up one of our last undisturbed wildernesses. Those companies will reap huge economic benefits through the sale of this finite resource, and we'll be more heavily contributing to global warming. Oh, you're unfamiliar? Certainly, industry heads are more interested in making a buck than sustainable business practices. But, now they have friends in congress (read: recipients of reelection dollars) and the White House who are helping them achieve their goals.
I think it's clear that humans are impacting the temperature of the earth. It's been widely reported that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is our fault, or that we're exacerbating the problem. Our President thinks that it's a conspiracy against business, and as a businessman where regulations impact his bottom line (no thanks to the emoluments clause) I can understand not being happy with rules that prevent him from making more money. However, I am flabbergasted about anyone coming right out and saying, "nope, it's not us and it's not as bad as you think."
In support of that false narrative, our government is doing its best to scrub all mentions of climate change from federal websites. Most recently, the EPA is removing climate change information related to the increase of "natural disasters." It's impossible to believe that they think that the mere removal of the science will mean that it will go away. If anything, between the California wildfires, and the most recent hurricane to hit Ireland, these are examples of climate influenced events, and they are clearly getting worse. It seems that the last outpost of climate science on a federal website is at NASA where they clearly link the burning of fossil fuels with the increase of greenhouse gasses and the direct impact on the global temperature thereby increasing the chance for more destructive natural disasters. It's science.
I don't have a suggestion of how to stop it other than voting in people who believe scientific fact. However, change your daily habits and do what's within your control to pollute less and become more energy efficient. I do know that cities all over the United States have vowed to continue to follow protocols set forth in the Paris Climate Agreement in hopes of slowing down the potential effects of increased drilling and utilization of fossil fuels by our government and their allies. We need to be loud and supportive of those politicians advancing the science. We need to protect irrefutable science from big business and overall nutjob TV show celebrities who have ascended into a high-powered governmental position (no, not you Mr. Franken). And we need to strive to keep the planet habitable for as long as possible, for our children and our children's children.
If 97 out of 100 doctors told you that you had cancer, why would you ignore them?
It makes sense to find an alternative. And, luckily that riddle has been solved. With the expectation that "nothing is perfect" we are getting better and better at harnessing wind and solar power. There have been advances at using the tides to generate energy, and also technologies which are making geothermal heating a reality.
Why does this matter? There's a couple of reasons. Economically, it would be great to be energy independent. As our current President makes trading with the United States less palatable, our dependencies on foreign energy suppliers exposes a weakness, one that can be used to manipulate markets. During Obama's presidency, and likely due to policies adopted by his predecessors as well, Forbes reported that U.S. dependence on foreign oil has hit a 30-year low. Unfortunately, this isn't because we're using less of it, but more of a fact that we're producing more of our own at a steep environmental cost. Yesterday, this:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democrats on Thursday failed to pass a measure to block oil and gas drilling in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, losing to Republicans who believe production there would provide jobs and wealth."
Our government will likely subsidize exploration, i.e. pay a private firm to dig up one of our last undisturbed wildernesses. Those companies will reap huge economic benefits through the sale of this finite resource, and we'll be more heavily contributing to global warming. Oh, you're unfamiliar? Certainly, industry heads are more interested in making a buck than sustainable business practices. But, now they have friends in congress (read: recipients of reelection dollars) and the White House who are helping them achieve their goals.
I think it's clear that humans are impacting the temperature of the earth. It's been widely reported that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is our fault, or that we're exacerbating the problem. Our President thinks that it's a conspiracy against business, and as a businessman where regulations impact his bottom line (no thanks to the emoluments clause) I can understand not being happy with rules that prevent him from making more money. However, I am flabbergasted about anyone coming right out and saying, "nope, it's not us and it's not as bad as you think."
In support of that false narrative, our government is doing its best to scrub all mentions of climate change from federal websites. Most recently, the EPA is removing climate change information related to the increase of "natural disasters." It's impossible to believe that they think that the mere removal of the science will mean that it will go away. If anything, between the California wildfires, and the most recent hurricane to hit Ireland, these are examples of climate influenced events, and they are clearly getting worse. It seems that the last outpost of climate science on a federal website is at NASA where they clearly link the burning of fossil fuels with the increase of greenhouse gasses and the direct impact on the global temperature thereby increasing the chance for more destructive natural disasters. It's science.
I don't have a suggestion of how to stop it other than voting in people who believe scientific fact. However, change your daily habits and do what's within your control to pollute less and become more energy efficient. I do know that cities all over the United States have vowed to continue to follow protocols set forth in the Paris Climate Agreement in hopes of slowing down the potential effects of increased drilling and utilization of fossil fuels by our government and their allies. We need to be loud and supportive of those politicians advancing the science. We need to protect irrefutable science from big business and overall nutjob TV show celebrities who have ascended into a high-powered governmental position (no, not you Mr. Franken). And we need to strive to keep the planet habitable for as long as possible, for our children and our children's children.
If 97 out of 100 doctors told you that you had cancer, why would you ignore them?
Friday, October 13, 2017
Run the World
A short opinion about the Boy Scouts of America decision to allow girls into the program.
If you're new to this story which broke a couple of days ago, the BSA Board of Directors have made a decision to allow girls first into the Cub Scouts starting next year and then, eventually (2019?), into the "Boy" Scouts so that they too can attain the BSA's highest award of Eagle Scout.
Needless to say that the Girl Scouts of America is nonplussed.
However, there are a couple of facts that needs to be considered:
The United Kingdom has had coed scouting since 1991.
The German Association of Guides and Scouts has groups of scouts that have been coed since 1976.
The Federation of French Scouting has groups of scouts that have been coed since 1971.
We are grossly late to the game.
Next, and I think that the Girl Scouts of America will agree, the two organizations offer completely different programs and attract parents and children for completely different reasons. I believe that there is sufficient room for an all-girl Scouting experience as well as a co-educational Scouting experience.
That said, the conversation through the years that I've overheard is one of: "I didn't do Girl Scouts because they sold cookies and I wanted to go camping." Obviously, this is a matter of optics. Girl Scouts and Brownies go hiking and camping. Do they go with the frequency of the Cub Scouts? I guess that depends on the troop leaders of both organizations. However, you can't blame people for having that bias...on their own page for the Brownie Scouts, selling cookies is prominently featured:
"At Girl Scouts, she'll take that first hike in the great outdoors, visit a science museum, and band together as a mighty Brownie team to sell cookies (and use some of the money to help others). Life is good when you’re a Brownie!"
What kid wants to sell cookies? Eat cookies, yes, but sell them? I understand it's a means to an end, let's raise money to allow our organization to fund the other activities and give charitable donations. But if service is your goal, remove selling cookies as your primary function! Change your optics. By contrast the Cub Scouts web site says:
"Some of the best things about Cub Scouting are the activities you get to do: camping, hiking, racing model cars, going on field trips, or doing projects that help your hometown and the people who live there. Cub Scouting means 'doing.'"
Yes, the Cub Scouts do sales as well, but those efforts aren't the focus of the boys responsibilities.
The long and the short of it is this, in my mind: if we integrate girls into Cub Scouting and then Scouting overall, it serves as an opportunity to get kids to recognize that both sexes at that early age and beyond can do everything the other does. Boys, get used to it, girls are here to stay and they are just as strong and willing to do/accomplish everything you can do/accomplish. I don't see this as a pilfering of girls who want to become part of the Girl Scouts of America, but more of an option for those girls turned off by the optics of a group whose focus is in fundraising and sedentary activities rather than hiking and camping. That may not be the truth, but it is a common misconception.
Instead of striking out at the Boy Scouts for a long overdue incorporation of girls, the Girl Scouts need to raise their game, change their optics and be proud of their program, a program that the Boy Scouts isn't looking to replicate or replace.
If you're new to this story which broke a couple of days ago, the BSA Board of Directors have made a decision to allow girls first into the Cub Scouts starting next year and then, eventually (2019?), into the "Boy" Scouts so that they too can attain the BSA's highest award of Eagle Scout.
Needless to say that the Girl Scouts of America is nonplussed.
However, there are a couple of facts that needs to be considered:
The United Kingdom has had coed scouting since 1991.
The German Association of Guides and Scouts has groups of scouts that have been coed since 1976.
The Federation of French Scouting has groups of scouts that have been coed since 1971.
We are grossly late to the game.
Next, and I think that the Girl Scouts of America will agree, the two organizations offer completely different programs and attract parents and children for completely different reasons. I believe that there is sufficient room for an all-girl Scouting experience as well as a co-educational Scouting experience.
That said, the conversation through the years that I've overheard is one of: "I didn't do Girl Scouts because they sold cookies and I wanted to go camping." Obviously, this is a matter of optics. Girl Scouts and Brownies go hiking and camping. Do they go with the frequency of the Cub Scouts? I guess that depends on the troop leaders of both organizations. However, you can't blame people for having that bias...on their own page for the Brownie Scouts, selling cookies is prominently featured:
"At Girl Scouts, she'll take that first hike in the great outdoors, visit a science museum, and band together as a mighty Brownie team to sell cookies (and use some of the money to help others). Life is good when you’re a Brownie!"
What kid wants to sell cookies? Eat cookies, yes, but sell them? I understand it's a means to an end, let's raise money to allow our organization to fund the other activities and give charitable donations. But if service is your goal, remove selling cookies as your primary function! Change your optics. By contrast the Cub Scouts web site says:
"Some of the best things about Cub Scouting are the activities you get to do: camping, hiking, racing model cars, going on field trips, or doing projects that help your hometown and the people who live there. Cub Scouting means 'doing.'"
Yes, the Cub Scouts do sales as well, but those efforts aren't the focus of the boys responsibilities.
The long and the short of it is this, in my mind: if we integrate girls into Cub Scouting and then Scouting overall, it serves as an opportunity to get kids to recognize that both sexes at that early age and beyond can do everything the other does. Boys, get used to it, girls are here to stay and they are just as strong and willing to do/accomplish everything you can do/accomplish. I don't see this as a pilfering of girls who want to become part of the Girl Scouts of America, but more of an option for those girls turned off by the optics of a group whose focus is in fundraising and sedentary activities rather than hiking and camping. That may not be the truth, but it is a common misconception.
Instead of striking out at the Boy Scouts for a long overdue incorporation of girls, the Girl Scouts need to raise their game, change their optics and be proud of their program, a program that the Boy Scouts isn't looking to replicate or replace.
Thursday, October 5, 2017
No static at all
Before I start on this week's diatribe, I'd like to acknowledge the tragedy in Las Vegas. I learned about it in the early hours of Monday morning as most did. I've listened to countless hours of NPR as they interviewed survivors and families of the murdered concert goers. I am deeply saddened about the event and fear that this will set a precedent for my own concert-going, habits. I've written about how I believe that politicians who call for prayers while not changing legislation are cowards and that there's a special place in hell for them. More words on how we need to reform our gun laws can be found here, here and here.
Now, let me sum up the crisis in Puerto Rico in a few words: people are suffering without electricity, regular influx of food and clean drinking water, and communications are down...on an entire island. Roads are blocked, and even if they weren't, nobody knows where to go to help themselves, or who is coming (and when they're coming) to provide aid. This is especially true when you consider the communities not adjacent to ports or major cities.
Puerto Rican internet message boards are filled with tips of where people can go to get cellular service...however, getting that information has been all word-of-mouth on the island as, well, they have insufficient power for computers and internet...so they can't really read those message boards. And, it's clear that direction to help from the U.S. Government has been slow. I've got some questions:
Why can't we have major LTE providers establish portable cell signal boats around the island to temporarily provide some cellular service? According to the Washington Post, tower range is highly variable and based not just on the strength of the signal, but also the geography it covers where signals get blocked and bounced based on buildings and topography. But, the general consensus is that it is possible to project a cell signal 20 miles. Puerto Rico is 40 miles at its thickest point, granted, it's not flat, but I would believe that, in this modern age, we could easily establish floating cell points to be used in instances such as this.
It appears that San Juan has limited power. However, even just after the Maria hit, NPR was able to communicate with FM radio stations on the island to get updates as to the conditions. Why? Some of those stations had generators to keep them up and running. That's good. Anyone with a battery- operated FM radio could, potentially, get life-saving information from the radio. The problem is that nobody buys new FM radios. I mean, we have them in our cars, and from the looks of it, most cars on Puerto Rico after the storm were...compromised. Still, an FM broadcast signal has the potential (at 100,000 watts) to reach a maximum distance of 100 miles...in all directions. Wouldn't it be great if there was a modern technology we already owned that had an FM receiver in it?
Well, as it turns out, most iPhones and some Android phones have disabled FM receivers in them! Wait, what? Why are they disabled? Here's a complete hypothetical, but I believe it's in line with Apple's responsibilities to the carriers that support their devices, namely wireless providers: AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc. You see, if you give away something for free, like the ability to listen to the radio on your phone without using data, that's a potential revenue source gone. Mobile carriers would much rather you front-load your wireless contracts so that you're constantly streaming data (hello TuneIn Radio and I Heart Radio apps). So which phones have it? Well, there are too many Android phones to name, but Apple's iPhone, at least since the 4s have had this technology...including the recently introduced iPhone 8.
So, as you seethe while watching the President Jack-Ass throw paper towels to desperate American citizens that live on an island that was slammed by one of the worst hurricanes on record...save some of your anger for wireless carriers who insist that your cell phones be dumbed down for their profit, and to the detriment of desperate and dying Americans who could have used that technology that they already own, to improve their lives after a severe catastrophic tragedy.
Now, let me sum up the crisis in Puerto Rico in a few words: people are suffering without electricity, regular influx of food and clean drinking water, and communications are down...on an entire island. Roads are blocked, and even if they weren't, nobody knows where to go to help themselves, or who is coming (and when they're coming) to provide aid. This is especially true when you consider the communities not adjacent to ports or major cities.
Puerto Rican internet message boards are filled with tips of where people can go to get cellular service...however, getting that information has been all word-of-mouth on the island as, well, they have insufficient power for computers and internet...so they can't really read those message boards. And, it's clear that direction to help from the U.S. Government has been slow. I've got some questions:
Why can't we have major LTE providers establish portable cell signal boats around the island to temporarily provide some cellular service? According to the Washington Post, tower range is highly variable and based not just on the strength of the signal, but also the geography it covers where signals get blocked and bounced based on buildings and topography. But, the general consensus is that it is possible to project a cell signal 20 miles. Puerto Rico is 40 miles at its thickest point, granted, it's not flat, but I would believe that, in this modern age, we could easily establish floating cell points to be used in instances such as this.
It appears that San Juan has limited power. However, even just after the Maria hit, NPR was able to communicate with FM radio stations on the island to get updates as to the conditions. Why? Some of those stations had generators to keep them up and running. That's good. Anyone with a battery- operated FM radio could, potentially, get life-saving information from the radio. The problem is that nobody buys new FM radios. I mean, we have them in our cars, and from the looks of it, most cars on Puerto Rico after the storm were...compromised. Still, an FM broadcast signal has the potential (at 100,000 watts) to reach a maximum distance of 100 miles...in all directions. Wouldn't it be great if there was a modern technology we already owned that had an FM receiver in it?
Well, as it turns out, most iPhones and some Android phones have disabled FM receivers in them! Wait, what? Why are they disabled? Here's a complete hypothetical, but I believe it's in line with Apple's responsibilities to the carriers that support their devices, namely wireless providers: AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc. You see, if you give away something for free, like the ability to listen to the radio on your phone without using data, that's a potential revenue source gone. Mobile carriers would much rather you front-load your wireless contracts so that you're constantly streaming data (hello TuneIn Radio and I Heart Radio apps). So which phones have it? Well, there are too many Android phones to name, but Apple's iPhone, at least since the 4s have had this technology...including the recently introduced iPhone 8.
So, as you seethe while watching the President Jack-Ass throw paper towels to desperate American citizens that live on an island that was slammed by one of the worst hurricanes on record...save some of your anger for wireless carriers who insist that your cell phones be dumbed down for their profit, and to the detriment of desperate and dying Americans who could have used that technology that they already own, to improve their lives after a severe catastrophic tragedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)