Comment Log Display

First, special commendation to your web designer. It is, by far,
the best interactive way to derive many comments. I particularly
like it keeping track of the comments I had read. Great Feature,
you might guess I am a programmer, I hope any other skill will be
apparent. I'll omit credentials, in case you see no evidence.

Second, a disclaimer: I read a sampling of all 101 comments, then,
and I hope I reflect some of what I learn, or the opposite.

Third, I saw some repeated comments I agree, I will not repeat
them, most of them congratulatory of your fine efforts.
---------------
1. I recommend incentives and penalties instead of mandates, that
require enforcement staff, you are best at deciding what is
practical and effective.

2. Therefore, I recommend a set of about two dozen clear simple
declarative sentences to cause the desired objective for the
public to ask our support. This way all will understand the
specific goals. Expanded versions would also help for those that
might be unfamiliar with some words, or legalese.

These are my recommendations:
1. Increase the cost of car registrations by 5% yearly. Allow
discounts on new cars on the basis of rated mpg. Electric and
Hybrid cars would have a fee to cover fee processing costs plus
20% or some such.

2. Implement the Insurance cost per mile for specially equipped
cars with an State-approved, tamper-proof, milage device. This
will help us know the actual cost of driving per mile.

3. Implement an SMOG tax together with the mandated bi-annual SMOG
Check, also in a per mile basis using the same State-approved
milage device.

4. Increase gasoline tax per gallon by 5% yearly or whatever is
the maximum politically acceptable, 4.5%?

5. Prohibit all state agencies, including MTC, from switching any
trasportation system to one that emits MORE pollution. There are
plans to switch some from Electric to Diesel fuel, this should be
prohibited. This may seem incredible but it is not. Did "they"
give their word to a contractor, unofficially?

6. Beware of mass mailings with a repeated phrase in support of a
particular point of view. I am pro-Windmills but I have seen
Pro-Nuclear power partisans take over a political meeting and try
to convert attendees with the worse and dishonorable forms of
debate, including falshoods, redicule, etc. 
If you get all to use this system, word-frequency patterns could
be detected. Their converts repeat word pattern and lie a lot.
Like they say "It is the safest and cheapest", pro-Ntural Gas
partisans refuse to admit it is a Cabon-based fuel, they do not
admit it is CH4. Vehement but rather simple minded.

This is my promotion of Windmills to ask for your support:
Windmills are the cheapest and ought to be considered the best
alternative energy source, Geothermal energy is second best . The
cost of windmill electric power dropped in the last 20 years.
Early wind farms in California, sold electricity at 38¢ per
kilowatt-hour. Now, many wind farms produce power at 4¢ per
kilowatt-hour, recently, some long-term supply contracts were made
at 3¢ per kilowatt-hour -and the cost is still falling. 
In California, PG&E has not build any oil or carbon fueled
powerplants for many years. California has a plan that lets
homeowners buy Solar Cells for all their needs with
reduced-interest loans.

In 1991, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Wind Resource
Inventory pointed out that “three states, Kansas, N. Dakota and
Texas have enough harnessable wind potential to fill national
electricity needs”; many are unaware of this. Also, there is much
propaganda to confuse the issue, for example: Scientific American
(Jan, 2008) asserts solar cell electricity could cost 6¢ per Kw-hr
by 2050 with $420 Billion in Federal Subsidies!
Why should taxpayers want to wait 40 years and invest $420 Billion
to produce electricity at TWICE the cost of Windmill power, now?
Some assert that construction of enough windmills would take 30 or
even 50 years. They probably think it is more difficult to build a
windmill that a “Liberty” ship, perhaps they know nothing about
either (?). Sen. Gore is right: We could switch to renewable
energy by 2030, Europe intends to use 30 Percent renewable energy
by 2020.
Nuclear power is “sold” to voters as a Renewable Energy Source,
this is false. 
Natural Gas is “sold” to the uneducated (see The PickensPlan), as
a Green Fuel, ignoring that each CH4, hydrocarbon molecule has as
much Carbon as each gasoline molecule. With the exception of
exotic fuels, a combustion engine that produces no Carbon
Emissions, produces no power.

To fight Global Warming, all Carbon Emissions MUST end, totally,
anywhere on earth.  This is as unlikely as the survival of the
human race -which depends on that.

Nuclear Power is prohibitive due to high building costs per rated
Kilowatt output and lack of available commercial insurance. A
major operator mistake can cause damage that lasts for many
centuries, a risk so high, no insurance will sell coverage without
government-backed support.

Construction of Nuclear Powerplants is forbidden in the U.S. until
a legal Nuclear Waste site is certified safe for thousands of
years, and Congress approves the site. This is most unlikely.

In my opinion, the 842 wildfires in California, produced by over
8,000 lightning, are the clearest indicator of Global Warming. The
Western Drought is not, we have had many droughts before. 

But, the lightning fell in the state that has the LOWEST average
lightning in the nation! In California, lightning strikes an
average of only 0.5 hits per sq. Km, per day.
It is, however, certain that the Carbon Emissions of these
wildfires will ACCELERATE Global Warming.

There are propaganda claims the forest fire particles will dim
solar radiation and REDUCE cooling in the North Pole and they even
claim this will save the polar bear. Yeah, I read it!
Please, do not assume we are as well informed as you are.
Thank your for all the fine work you do. The best I have seen, in
my work in NACA, NASA, USAF and aerospace companies.