This was written in response to a bandaid being circulated by MoveON.org to deal with the banking situation:
Daniel,
We need to recognize that no amount of regulation is going to stop
these egregious practices and that the only possible solution is
phasing in of outright bans on certain activities and the taxation of
all income that is not reinvested into direct local primary production
processes. All income must be taxed at 80% or higher for those funds
above some appropriate amount say $250.000. That this taxation levy
will:
1) be imposed in a step wise manner to allow time for accommodation of personal situations but
2) be accompanied by both a moratorium on derivative trading, criminal investigation of fraudulent transactions, and
3) be followed by development of currency creation by a Federal entity rather than private banks. Further,
4) a series of public strategic bank systems should be established
regionally to facilitate development of the local systems for
sustainable adaptation to the new realities of peak oil, peak resources
in general and human population carrying capacity of the US.
Alan Page
Get your Supreme Court Bumper sticker now!
I challenge all to support your public radio stations by a similar challenge grant ( I provided $12.50 as 50% of the cost of Ellen Brown's book to WAMC):
This small gift is a scholarship for Alan C. to read a copy of Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" and an open subscription to her website of the same name. This is provided as a 50% match to this gift (I will provide the other half of this gift) be followed when and if he chooses to read this note on the air. It is also a challenge to all who understand the fraudulent nature of our current banking and currency creation system to support the formation of a "public radio strategic bank" that would provide the needed low or no interest funding for support of all public radio systems.
This also recognizes the intellectual bankruptcy of the current situation of
the States of NY, CT, MA, VT, NH & ME to name a few and WAMC's complicity
in not challenging the lack of State Banks in each of these states. Ellen Brown
has described the operation of the only State Bank the Bank of ND which has
been in existence for 90 years and has helped ND be one of two states that now
have budget surpluses. A call to 4133234401 would provide some guidance to
figuring out how to extricate us all from this intolerable situation of
currency contraction and socialism for the rich. See the Strategic Banking
section of my blog at http://alansblog.vox.com. I await the possibility of
adding an additional pledge to this very worthy cause.
Alan Page
Hi Steve,
The current arrangements that NRCS has put in place do not
appear to fit our requirements. I have offered to begin a discussion
with John Kick, Christine Clarke, and others to see if there is a way
for us all to understand what works in real working forest situations
as opposed to one where the land is being held as a toy. Thank you
for spending you time to educate me, I appreciated the attempt to help
and make the best of a bad situation, but it is too limited and risk
laden for me to proceed at this time. I hope that this discussion will
bring home the point that forest management is something that must be
systematically applied over a long period in a timely manner not
something that is applied once no matter how well the individual
application is performed.
Alan Page
--- On Thu, 2/4/10, Beaulieu, Steven -
Holden, MA <Steven.Beaulieu@ma.usda.gov> wrote:
From: Beaulieu, Steven - Holden, MA
Subject: RE: Laurel Lake Road Lot, Royalston, MA
To: "'ALAN PAGE'" <alan@greendiamondsystems.com>
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 9:17 AM
Good Morning,
Alan we received your email this morning but I am a little confused as to your desire to pursue an EQIP forestry contract for the Laurel Lake Road property. The NRCS EQIP forestry program is not designed to support forestry related “educational arrangements”. As was discussed with you in the field NRCS might be able to assist with some of the cuttings of undesirable species and / or thinning as well as the culvert replacement. NRCS does not cost share on timber harvest and most EQIP forestry contracts are started and completed within five to ten years. If you are still interested in working with NRCS (Holden Field Office) on an EQIP forestry contract please reply to this email and confirm that you understand that the proposed contract dollars will not be used directly for a forestry related “educational arrangement”.
Steve
Steven Beaulieu
Conservation Program Manager
United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
52 Boyden Road
Holden, Ma 01520
From: ALAN PAGE
[mailto:alan@greendiamondsystems.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:00 PM
To: Beaulieu, Steven - Holden, MA
Cc: Kick, John - Amherst, MA; Karen Ribeiro
Subject: Re: Laurel Lake Road Lot, Royalston, MA
|
Hi
Steve, The only kind of program I would be willing to sign is either a budget that is set for me to direct toward steps that fit with the conditions on the ground and the people available in the years specified or for you to review what we have done over the past year and offer whatever assistance you can arrange after the fact. I do not want to be spending funds I do not have, and be waiting for the NRCS to decide whether they will come along and bail me out. I appreciated our walk and your interest in the possibilities I saw. I hope that we can come to some mutually advantageous and educational arrangement. You should note that there is quite a bit about biochar and alternative energy as well. Thanks, Alan Page ---------------------- 35 year Budget for the Maintenance of the 67 acre Lot of Alan & Joanna Page under a Conservation Easement Off of Laurel Lake Road Through land of Luther Otto As Part of a Neighborhood Clean Energy and Forest Products Processing Coop Royalston, MA January 28, 2010
Site Specific Practices:
Access and Value Added Processing Related Practices: Existing road access improvement - $15,000 + 14,000+6,000 Culvert replacement $3000 Surface stabilization 5000 Repair every 5 yr 2000 times 7 Bridge Installation 8000 Repair every 10 yr 3000 times 2 Construction of a 1 acre Processing Pad - $10,000 + 17,000 Clearing and stumping $1500 Grading and hardening 8500 Annual Regrading 500 times 35
Stand Management Activities:Practice Review Procedures: The expectation here is that these items will allow the allocation of practices as the stems develop. Current experiments in NH indicate the there is a distinct possibility for the production of $35,000 or more per acre (every 20 years on stands 2-4” DBH there is less than ten acres of this type present but the conditions will be created for increasing that kind of forest type to around fifty acres or more within 15 years) dedicated to white pine production (assuming that the climate does not change materially during that time - although the white pine has the most latitude for adaptation to moderate temperature increase while still producing valuable lumber. Soft maple and oak also have a quite wide range but much less value appreciation potential.) The set of practices proposed will minimize the use of fossil fuels for the conversion of valuable material. The use of residuals for local energy and carbon sequestration will be explored and demonstrated as funding develops.
Establishment of UTM100 meter grid points on the ground and maintenance of them as activity location centers Combined Office and Field Work $750 Development and maintenance of forest database for projection of performance using 100m grid Complete Inventory $1500 Simulation setup 750 5year Reviews 1000 times 7
Field Practices: Forest Improvement Cuttings every five years for at least the first fifteen years Some are going to cost money to do others will pay for them selves. Estimated costs: ½ of treated area cost: $750/acre Year 1 20 acres $7500 Year 5 20 acres 7500 Year 10 10 acres 3750 Year 15 10 acres 3750
Low thinning to follow the improvement cuts every 5 years as needed Estimated Cost: ($1000-2000 per acre this may include chipping of improvement cut residuals and small unmerchantable thinning and application of biochar initially in a series of tests the results of which will be incorporated into the strand analysis for elaboration to wider areas as experience develops and markets for carbon sequestration mature. Additional costs of tests and modified applications not included) Year 1 20 acres $20,000 Year 5 20 acres 20,000-40,000 Year 10 10 acres 10,000-20,000 Year 15 10 acres 10,000-20,000
Direct seeding of white pine and other desirable species in areas that have been recently treated. (For reasons unknown the pine seed crop last year was very poor in this valley. It is expected that the whole stand is relatively low in vigor because of the historic lack of thinning.) Year 1 40 acres $8,000 Year 5 20 acres 4,000
Pruning of selected crop trees every five years forever: (Pruning will be done to maintain ½ of the total tree height or less in live crown. It is hoped that a light man lift or sky-worker bucket could be modified to be carried on a forwarder or tracked Skid Steer Loader to provide access to the upper part of stems as needed.) Initial 0-18’ pruning done as the stand reaches a condition to warrant it (expected height growth 2’/year average so saplings will take ten years to grow from 16 to 40’ and new regeneration will take somewhat more than 20 years to reach the same condition. First sapling stand Year 1 - 5 acres $1500-2000 Year 1 - high pruning scattered overstory trees $2000 Year 5 – Push up pruning (10-20‘) ~4 acres $1000 ` Second Sapling pruning (0-18’ yr 5-8) ~4 acres 2000 Third High level pruning (16-30’ yr 12-14) 2500+5000 Fourth high level pruning (25-40’ yr 17-19) 3500+10000 Fifth include new 14500+15000 Sixth 36000+60000
Removal of mature trees every five years Processing of logs to lumber, bedding, energy Income generating - 50% of proceeds reinvested - =(amount income invested by owner) Yr 0 ($500) Yr 5 ($1500) Yr 10 ($3500) Yr 15 ($4000) Yr 20 ($45000) Yr 25 ($20000) Yr 30 ($30000) Yr 35 ($50000)
Practices that could be Coop Facilitated:Processing possibilities? Onsite drying of cordwood in marketable units using dry kiln and onsite waste heat energy Coop processing of higher value products
Utility Connection - Unknown Installation of a Drying Facility - $10,000 Moving 53’ insulated trailer box $1000 Purchase of Prefab parts 4000 On site fabrication of kiln features 5000 Installation of Carbon Negative Energy Biochar Processing Facility TBD Selection of Chip Production and Handling Systems Purchase of biochar processor Development of specifications Advertising for Equipment Development of Contract Purchase and installation Purchase of Energy Conversion System Development of Contract with Utility for power Selection of Energy Conversion system(s) Development of Contracts for Co-products
Upgrade of Portable Sawmill Facility that is now owned by Page family Upgrade of In Woods Short Wood Processing System Modify Timbco 2518 with state of art continuous rotation swivel Add hot saw processor head Add Drying capacity for firewood and lumber to the site in Royalston Possibilities for Demonstration of in Woods chipping of residues after shortwood removal Crawler mounted chipper with loader to fill small rolloff containers Modify forwarder to carry rolloff containers and be able to dump them at processor or add chip pack to the forwarder and trailer to carry dumpable container. Build loading facility to aid in transfer of chips to processor or transport.
--- On Mon, 2/1/10, Beaulieu, Steven - Holden, MA <Steven.Beaulieu@ma.usda.gov> wrote:
Hi Alan, I received your voice mail but I could not make out the website that you mentioned over the phone (poor connection). Now that you have my email please send me your forestry updates ASAP. Thanks, Steve
Steven Beaulieu
|
This is a work in progress. If you think that you live in a democracy, just watch how this one plays out! The letters will be added as time permits.
Alan Page
Hi Carmine,
I just received your letter with the irresponsible and
legally flawed letter from MANH. As I stated on the phone any such
meddling in perfectly good forestry projects in the midst of normal
development properties which are unaffected by these regulations is
completely unacceptable to me as a licensed forester. I have given the
cutting plan to ********* for him to do as he, the landowner, sees
fit to do, but I will have no further input to you or MANH except to
write them a letter detailing my objections and the reasons that I as a
professional forester will not participate further until they withdraw
all their attempts to control this project or until they extend their
control over the whole region equally. This means that both gravel pits
must be shut down during the restricted operation periods as well as
the operation of the Ludlow Reservoir and the development on Reservoir
Road and the construction on the powerline and the use of the powerline
road system by four wheelers. Of course the power line operations group
must also be denied access to the affected portion of the road. This
note and the accompanying letters are going to be posted on my blog, http://alansblog.vox.com,
for all to see how irrational this attempt to work only on the least
financially stable segment of the MA economy really is. Any further
correspondence you have with me in this regard will be posted as well.
As
we discussed on the phone this AM this public employment mill needs to
be reined in by those who are responsible for imposing these senseless
limitations. It would be one thing if the purchased the rights to the
portion of the ecosystem that they seek to control, but it is quite
another thing to dictate to taxpaying owners who have committed to keep
their land in forest that they now must comply with unequally enforced
regulations.
Alan Page, Ph. D.
MA Licensed FORESTER #184
Having sat through more USDA sponsored educational workshops than I thought I ever would need to do, I now understand that their real goal is to just look busy. Their proposals all involve such tenuous guarantees of assistance and monetary commitments up front that the only ones who could possibly afford to participate are those who do not really need the help.
To top it all off the programs in forestry that are able to be funded now are such a small window on the forestry landscape that is soo... high up the wall (in terms of advancement of out of pocket funds before commitment of USDA monies) and of "practices that they will support" (more on this below) that it is not worth even looking for a ladder much less trying to climb high enough to look out through the tiny window.
What is real forestry? Real forestry basically nudges chaos toward some goal in the distant future. It involves consistent application of on the ground effort (real work) and in the office analysis to make sure that what can develop from a parcel actually happens as nature applies all the normal climatic artistry that each decade brings.
Below is an unfundable list of things that I believe would be needed to get a parcel that I am a steward of; it is incomplete but probably covers a period of time longer than what I have left to care about.
-----------A DRAFT - it will change over the next several days. ACP
35 year Budget for the Maintenance of the 67 acre Lot of
Alan & Joanna Page under a Conservation Easement
Off of Laurel Lake Road Through land of Luther Otto
As Part of a Neighborhood Clean Energy and Forest Products Processing Coop
Royalston, MA January 28, 2010
Site Specific Practices:
Access and Value Added Processing Related Practices:
Existing road access improvement - $15,000 + 14,000+6,000
Culvert replacement $3000
Surface stabilization 5000
Repair every 5 yr 2000 times 7
Bridge Installation 8000
Repair every 10 yr 3000 times 2
Construction of a 1 acre Processing Pad - $10,000 + 17,000
Clearing and stumping $1500
Grading and hardening 8500
Annual Regrading 500 times 35
Stand Management Activities:
Practice Review Procedures:
The expectation here is that these items will allow the allocation of practices as the stems develop. Current experiments in NH indicate the there is a distinct possibility for the production of $35,000 or more per acre (every 20 years on stands 2-4” DBH there is less than ten acres of this type present but the conditions will be created for increasing that kind of forest type to around fifty acres or more within 15 years) dedicated to white pine production (assuming that the climate does not change materially during that time - although the white pine has the most latitude for adaptation to moderate temperature increase while still producing valuable lumber. Soft maple and oak also have a quite wide range but much less value appreciation potential.) The set of practices proposed will minimize the use of fossil fuels for the conversion of valuable material. The use of residuals for local energy and carbon sequestration will be explored and demonstrated as funding develops.
Establishment of UTM100 meter grid points on the ground and maintenance of them as activity location centers
Combined Office and Field Work $750
Development and maintenance of forest database for projection of performance using 100m grid
Complete Inventory $1500
Simulation setup 750
5year Reviews 1000 times 7
Field Practices:
Forest Improvement Cuttings every five years for at least the first fifteen years
Some are going to cost money to do others will pay for them selves.
Estimated costs:
½ of treated area cost: $750/acre
Year 1 20 acres $7500
Year 5 20 acres 7500
Year 10 10 acres 3750
Year 15 10 acres 3750
Low thinning to follow the improvement cuts every 5 years as needed
Estimated Cost: ($1000-2000 per acre this may include chipping of improvement cut residuals and small unmerchantable thinning and application of biochar initially in a series of tests the results of which will be incorporated into the strand analysis for elaboration to wider areas as experience develops and markets for carbon sequestration mature. Additional costs of tests and modified applications not included)
Year 1 20 acres $20,000
Year 5 20 acres 20,000-40,000
Year 10 10 acres 10,000-20,000
Year 15 10 acres 10,000-20,000
Direct seeding of white pine and other desirable species in areas that have been recently treated. (For reasons unknown the pine seed crop last year was very poor in this valley. It is expected that the whole stand is relatively low in vigor because of the historic lack of thinning.)
Year 1 40 acres $8,000
Year 5 20 acres 4,000
Pruning of selected crop trees every five years forever: (Pruning will be done to maintain ½ of the total tree height or less in live crown. It is hoped that a light man lift or sky-worker bucket could be modified to be carried on a forwarder or tracked Skid Steer Loader to provide access to the upper part of stems as needed.)
Initial 0-18’ pruning done as the stand reaches a condition to warrant it (expected height growth 2’/year average so saplings will take ten years to grow from 16 to 40’ and new regeneration will take somewhat more than 20 years to reach the same condition.
First sapling stand Year 1 - 5 acres $1500-2000
Year 1 - high pruning scattered overstory trees $2000
Year 5 – Push up pruning (10-20‘) ~4 acres $1000
` Second Sapling pruning (0-18’ yr 5-8) ~4 acres 2000
Third High level pruning (16-30’ yr 12-14) 2500+5000
Fourth high level pruning (25-40’ yr 17-19) 3500+10000
Fifth include new 14500+15000
Sixth 36000+60000
Removal of mature trees every five years
Processing of logs to lumber, bedding, energy
Income generating - 50% of proceeds reinvested - =(amount income invested by owner)
Yr 0 ($500)
Yr 5 ($1500)
Yr 10 ($3500)
Yr 15 ($4000)
Yr 20 ($45000)
Yr 25 ($20000)
Yr 30 ($30000)
Yr 35 ($50000)
Practices that could be Coop Facilitated:
Processing possibilities?
Onsite drying of cordwood in marketable units using dry kiln and onsite waste heat energy
Coop processing of higher value products
Utility Connection - Unknown
Installation of a Drying Facility - $10,000
Moving 53’ insulated trailer box $1000
Purchase of Prefab parts 4000
On site fabrication of kiln features 5000
Installation of Carbon Negative Energy Biochar Processing Facility TBD
Selection of Chip Production and Handling Systems
Purchase of biochar processor
Development of specifications
Advertising for Equipment
Development of Contract
Purchase and installation
Purchase of Energy Conversion System
Development of Contract with Utility for power
Selection of Energy Conversion system(s)
Development of Contracts for Co-products
Upgrade of Portable Sawmill Facility that is now owned by Page family
Upgrade of In Woods Short Wood Processing System
Modify Timbco 2518 with state of art continuous rotation swivel
Add hot saw processor head
Add Drying capacity for firewood and lumber to the site in Royalston
Possibilities for Demonstration of in Woods chipping of residues after shortwood removal
Crawler mounted chipper with loader to fill small rolloff containers
Modify forwarder to carry rolloff containers and be able to dump them at processor or add chip pack to the forwarder and trailer to carry dumpable container.
Build loading facility to aid in transfer of chips to processor or transport.
The item below is available on Ellen Brown's Web of Debt. It is printed here because it applies as well to job creation and all other things that are missing in the banker supported period we are living through:
Thank You ELLEN!
FUNDING PUBLIC HEALTH CARE WITH A PUBLICLY-OWNED BANK:
HOW CANADA DID IT
Ellen Brown, January 21st, 2010
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/canadian_healthcare.php
The story goes that Churchill offered a woman 5 million pounds to sleep with him. She hedged and said they would have to discuss terms. Then he offered her 5 pounds. “Sir!” she said. “What sort of woman do you think I am?” “Madam,” he replied, “We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”
The same might be said of President Obama’s health care bill, which was sold out to corporate interests early on. The insurance lobby had its way with the bill; after that they were just haggling over the price. The “public option” was so watered down in congressional deal-making that it finally disappeared altogether.
However, the bill passed both Houses by razor-thin margins, and the stunning loss on January 19 of the late Ted Kennedy’s Democratic seat to a Republican may force Obama to start over with his agenda. The good news is that this means there is still a chance of getting legislation that includes what Obama’s supporters thought they were getting when they elected him – a universal health care plan on the model of Medicare.
That still leaves the question of price, but all industrialized countries except the United States have managed to foot the bill for universal health care. How is it that they can afford it when we can’t? Do they have some secret funding source that we don’t have?
In the case of our nearest neighbor Canada, the answer is actually that they do. At least, they did for the first two decades of their national health service -- long enough to get it up and running. Now the Canadian government, too, is struggling with a mounting debt to private banks at compound interest; and its national health service is suffering along with other public programs. But when Canada first launched its national health service, the funding came from money created by its own central bank. Canada’s innovative funding model is one that could still be followed by a President committed to deliver on his promises.
The Canadian National Health Service Today
Despite what you may have read in the corporate-controlled press, studies show that Canadians are generally happy with the care they receive; and they live an average of 2.5 years longer than Americans. They receive free health service for all diagnostic procedures, hospital and home care deemed medically necessary. People can choose the general practitioners they want; there are no deductibles on basic care; and co-pays are low or zero. Care continues despite changing jobs, and no one is excluded for having a pre-existing condition. Drug prices are negotiated by the government and are paid with public money for the elderly and homeless. For the rest of the population, cost-sharing schemes are arranged between private insurers and provincial governments, with most provinces requiring families to pay small monthly premiums (generally around $100 for a family of four).
According to a 2007 study, the government pays for more than two-thirds of all Canadian health care costs. The US government, by contrast, pays for less than half of these costs. In 2007, the US spent a staggering 16% of GDP on health care compared to 10% in Canada. Health costs paid for out-of-pocket by Canadians amount to less than $300 per capita annually.
But while that arrangement may look good to people in the U.S., it is only a shadow of Canada’s former system. The federal government’s contributions have decreased significantly, making up only slightly more than 20% of provincial medical care costs in 2002; and this money is largely borrowed by the Canadian government at interest. The portion not paid by the federal government must be borne by provincial governments through taxes. In its early years, however, Canada’s public health system was funded under a provision of the Bank of Canada Act allowing the Bank to create the money to finance federal, provincial, and municipal projects on a nearly interest-free basis.
Money Created the Old-fashioned Way – by the Government Rather than the Banks
What was extraordinary about the Bank of Canada was not so much that it created money on its books as that it managed to wrest that power away from the private banking monopoly. All banks actually create the money they lend simply with accounting entries on their books. This was confirmed by Graham Towers, the first governor of the Bank of Canada, in hearings in 1935. Asked whether banks create “the medium of exchange,” he replied:
“That is right. That is what they are there for. . . . That is the banking business, just in the way that a steel plant makes steel. The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all.”
The decision to fund government programs through a publicly-owned central bank was driven by a crisis much like that in the U.S. today. The country was in the throes of the Great Depression, and the money supply had radically contracted, causing businesses to close and unemployment to soar. Many Canadians blamed the private banks for making conditions worse by failing to extend loans.
Prior to the 1935 Bank of Canada Act, private banks in Canada issued their own banknotes, which were regulated less by the government than by the Canadian Banker’s Association. The country’s largest private bank, the Bank of Montreal, served as the government’s de facto banker. By the eve of the Great Depression, interest on Canada’s public debt had reached one-third of government expenditures, and many officials believed that the government needed a central bank to come up with the money to pay its foreign debts. A Royal Commission was put together in 1933 which supported creating a Bank. A major debate then ensued over whether the central bank should be public or private.
Much of the credit for the Canadian public banking model goes to a Canadian mayor named Gerald Gratton McGeer. He has been largely lost to history, and his book The Conquest of Poverty has been long out of print; but according to local historian Will Abrams, it was McGeer’s lengthy presentations to the Ottawa Common Banking Committee that clarified for bankers, economists and legislators how well a publicly-owned bank could work. McGeer’s model was based on the public banking system of Guernsey, an island state between Britain and France. The Guernsey government began issuing currency to pay for public works as far back as 1816. To this day, its system of publicly-issued money has allowed its inhabitants to maintain full employment and enjoy quality infrastructure, while paying modest taxes and without suffering from price inflation.
The Bank of Canada became publicly-owned in 1938 under Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, a staunch supporter of McGeer’s vision for a public central bank. King maintained:
“Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile. Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation.”
What Can Be Done by a Government Issuing Its Own Currency
Along with New Zealand, Australia and other progressive countries, Canada proceeded to fund infrastructure and social programs using national credit issued by its own central bank. The potential of this new credit tool for the Canadian economy was first demonstrated in World War II, in which Canada ranked fourth among the Allies for production of war goods. Under the Returning Veterans Rehabilitation Act of 1945, some 54,000 returning vets were given financial aid to attend university. The Department of Veterans Affairs provided another 80,000 vets with vocational training, and the Veterans’ Land Act helped 33,000 vets buy farmland.
After the War, the Industrial Development Bank, a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada, was formed to boost Canadian businesses by offering loans at low interest rates. The Bank of Canada also funded many infrastructure projects and social programs directly. Under the 1950 Trans Canada Highway Act, Canada built the world’s longest road and the world’s longest inland waterway (a joint venture with the United States), as well as the 28-mile Welland Canal. People over 70, regardless of income or assets, received $40 a month from the government under the Old Age Security Act; and children under 15 got a tax-free allowance of $5-$8 a month.
Canadians first began talking about a government-run health system during the Great Depression, but at that time the government felt it could not afford the service. Various provincial programs were launched in the 1940s, often to care for returning veterans. But it was not until 1957 that the Canadian federal health care system was actually initiated, with funding from the Bank of Canada. A Hospital Act was passed under which the federal government agreed to pay half its citizens’ bills at most hospitals; and a Diagnostic Services Act gave all Canadians free acute hospital care, as well as lab and radiology work. In 1966, the Hospital Act was expanded to cover physician services. In 1984, the Canada Health Act ensured that no medically-necessary care would include private fees or a charge to citizens.
A Misguided Economic Policy Kills the Golden Goose
For three decades, Canada paid for these projects through its own government-owned central bank, without sparking price inflation. Then in the late 1960s, a period of “stagflation” set in --rising prices accompanied by high unemployment. According to former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer, these elevated prices were the result of “cost-push” inflation, which could be traced to a combination of causes. Big labor unions, big government, and big corporations all negotiated top dollar for their contracts. In 1971, President Richard Nixon took the U.S. dollar off the gold standard, putting a strain on currencies in international markets. In 1974, the price of oil quadrupled, following a secret deal between Henry Kissinger and the OPEC countries in which the latter agreed to sell their oil only in U.S. dollars and to deposit the dollars in U.S. banks. Countries without sufficient dollar reserves had to borrow from these banks to buy the oil they needed, setting a debt trap that sprang shut when U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker raised interest rates to 20% in 1980.
These increased costs drove up prices worldwide; but in Canada, price inflation was blamed on the government drawing money from its own central bank. Under the sway of the classical monetarist theory promoted by U.S. economist Milton Friedman, the Canadian government abandoned its successful experiment in self-funding and began borrowing from private international lenders. These private banks created “credit” on their books just as the Bank of Canada had done; but they lent it to the government at compound interest, creating a soaring national debt. Today, interest on the debt is the Canadian government’s single largest budget expenditure -- larger than health care, senior entitlements or national defense.
The provision of government-paid services is gradually being undermined by a combination of cuts to funding and provision of private services. Canada’s health care system is suffering along with the rest of the economy, necessitating the cutbacks and long waits for elective procedures described by critics. But the achievements of an earlier debt-free era attest to the sustainability of a system of public health care funded with money issued through the government’s own central bank.
Goosing the Economy Again
The Bank of Canada was created to end the hardships of the depression and give the government full responsibility for the health of the economy. As it turned out, the Bank also funded the health of the Canadian people.
The U.S. government could fund universal health coverage in the same way. Ideally, it would nationalize the Federal Reserve or set up a separate government-owned bank for this purpose. However, the same result could be achieved by borrowing from the privately-owned Federal Reserve, which always rebates the interest to the government after deducting its costs. The federal debt is never paid off but is just rolled over from year to year. Interest-free loans rolled over from year to year are the equivalent of debt-free government-issued money.
Contrary to popular belief, adding to the money supply in this way would not be inflationary. Inflation results when “demand” (“money”) exceeds “supply” (goods and services). In this case the new money would be used to create new goods and services, so supply would be kept in balance with demand. The result would particularly not be inflationary today, when we are suffering from a deflationary crisis. As in the Great Depression, money is not available to buy products and fund programs because the money supply itself has collapsed. The solution is not to slash programs but to put more money into the economy; and that can be done by authorizing the government to create the funds it needs through its own bank.
Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com, www.ellenbrown.com, and www.public-banking.com.
David,
I have had a very interesting conversation with John Kick and the content of that conversation is and will be posted on my blog at: http://alansblog.vox.com.
There is nothing in that conversation that reflects badly on you or your colleagues, in fact I recognize that you have a difficult job recognizing real versus fraudulent claims. I have found through 40+ years of forest work that management is not what one does once but what is applied consistently over a very long time period. As a senior in the forestry ranks it is incumbent on me to say things that others are constrained from saying because they have kids and family to support which might be jeopardized by my kind of statements. There is ample evidence in the Wakem management plan of that expected commitment.
The most difficult part of the conversation for me is the idea that forest owners are getting rich off of any sales that can be generated and therefore are not in need of aid on those areas. This discussion will play out on my blog as will this note.
I look forward to going over this and other issues with you tomorrow.
I have attached a proposal that was dropped off to John yesterday for a parcel I own that looks at what it will take to recognize the potential of a 60 acre parcel in Royalston, MA. This will be backed up with research test daata from NH since we have no way of collecting this kind of information in MA.
Al
--------------------------
35 year Budget for the Maintenance of the 67 acre Lot of
Alan & Joanna Page under a Conservation Easement
Off of Laurel Lake Road Through land of Luther Otto
As Part of a Neighborhood Clean Energy and Forest Products Processing Coop
Royalston, MA January 25, 2010
Site Specific Practices:
Access and Value Added Processing Related Practices:
Existing road access improvement - $15,000 + 14,000+6,000
Culvert replacement $3000
Surface stabilization 5000
Repair every 5 yr 2000 times 7
Bridge Installation 8000
Repair every 10 yr 3000 times 2
Construction of a 1 acre Processing Pad - $10,000 + 17,000
Clearing and stumping $1500
Grading and hardening 8500
Annual Regrading 500 times 35
Stand Management Activities:
Practice Review Procedures:
The expectation here is that these items will allow the allocation of practices as the stems develop. Current experiments in NH indicate the there is a distinct possibility for the production of $35,000 or more per acre (every 20 years on stands 2-4” DBH there is less than ten acres of this type present but the conditions will be created for increasing that kind of forest type to around fifty acres or more within 15 years) dedicated to white pine production (assuming that the climate does not change materially during that time - although the white pine has the most latitude for adaptation to moderate temperature increase while still producing valuable lumber. Soft maple and oak also have a quite wide range but much less value appreciation potential.) The set of practices proposed will minimize the use of fossil fuels for the conversion of valuable material. The use of residuals for local energy and carbon sequestration will be explored and demonstrated as funding develops.
Establishment of UTM100 meter grid points on the ground and maintenance of them as activity location centers
Combined Office and Field Work $750
Development and maintenance of forest database for projection of performance using 100m grid
Complete Inventory $1500
Simulation setup 750
5year Reviews 1000 times 7
Field Practices:
Forest Improvement Cuttings every five years for at least the first fifteen years
Some are going to cost money to do others will pay for them selves.
Estimated costs:
½ of treated area cost: $750/acre
Year 1 20 acres $7500
Year 5 20 acres 7500
Year 10 10 acres 3750
Year 15 10 acres 3750
Low thinning to follow the improvement cuts every 5 years as needed
Estimated Cost: ($1000 per acre this may include chipping of improvement cut residuals and small unmerchantable thinnings)
Year 1 20 acres $20,000
Year 5 20 acres 20,000
Year 10 10 acres 10,000
Year 15 10 acres 10,000
Direct seeding of white pine and other desirable species in areas that have been recently treated. (For reasons unknown the pine seed crop last year was very poor in this valley. It is expected that the whole stand is relatively low in vigor because of the historic lack of thinning.)
Year 1 40 acres $8,000
Year 5 20 acres 4,000
Pruning of selected crop trees every five years forever: (Pruning will be done to maintain ½ of the total tree height or less in live crown. It is hoped that a light man lift or sky-worker bucket could be modified to be carried on a forwarder or tracked Skid Steer Loader to provide access to the upper part of stems as needed.)
Year 1 - 5 acres $1500-2000
Year 1 - high pruning scattered overstory trees $2000
Year 5 – Push up pruning 5 acres 2000
Removal of mature trees every five years
Processing of logs to lumber, bedding, energy
Processing possibilities?
Onsite drying of cordwood in marketable units using dry kiln and onsite waste heat energy
Coop processing of higher value products
Coop Dependent Practices:
Utility Connection - Unknown
Installation of a Drying Facility - $10,000
Moving 53’ insulated trailer box $1000
Purchase of Prefab parts 4000
On site fabrication of kiln features 5000
Installation of Carbon Negative Energy Biochar Processing Facility TBD
Selection of Chip Production and Handling Systems
Purchase of biochar processor
Development of specifications
Advertising for Equipment
Development of Contract
Purchase and installation
Purchase of Energy Conversion System
Development of Contract with Utility for power
Selection of Energy Conversion system(s)
Development of Contracts for Co-products
Opportunities if the Coop creation is not forthcoming:
Upgrade of Portable Sawmill Facility that is now owned by Page family
Upgrade of In Woods Short Wood Processing System
Modify Timbco 2518 with state of art continuous rotation swivel
Add hot saw processor head
Add Drying capacity for firewood and lumber to the site in Royalston
Demonstrate in Woods chipping of residues after shortwood removal
Crawler mounted chipper with loader to fill small rolloff containers
Modify forwarder to carry rolloff containers and be able to dump them at processor
Three years ago Will Guinn, management forester with NHDRED and others, set up a series of thinning plots to test the effects of wide spacing on tree performance. The following spread sheets are documents to try and evaluate the performance and potential for the trees that remain as the stand develops. The presentation of these simulations is still incomplete:
| Test Example | Constant DBH growth .66"/yr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Intl 1/4" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year | DBH | SfBA/Tree | #Trees/A | BA/A | #Trees/A | BA/A | BF/A | Logs | bf/tree | VBAR |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 | 2 | 0.02 | 130 | 2.8 | 170 | 3.7 | 0 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 | 2.66 | 0.04 | 130 | 5.0 | 170 | 6.6 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 | 3.32 | 0.06 | 130 | 7.8 | 170 | 10.2 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2010 | 3.98 | 0.09 | 130 | 11.2 | 170 | 14.7 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 | 4.64 | 0.12 | 130 | 15.3 | 170 | 20.0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 | 5.3 | 0.15 | 130 | 19.9 | 170 | 26.0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 5.96 | 0.19 | 130 | 25.2 | 170 | 32.9 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 | 6.62 | 0.24 | 130 | 31.1 | 170 | 40.6 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 | 7.28 | 0.29 | 130 | 37.6 | 170 | 49.1 | 1700 | 1 | 10 | 35 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 | 7.94 | 0.34 | 130 | 44.7 | 170 | 58.5 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 | 8.6 | 0.40 | 130 | 52.4 | 170 | 68.6 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 | 9.26 | 0.47 | 130 | 60.8 | 170 | 79.5 | 6120 | 1 | 36 | 77 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2019 | 9.92 | 0.54 | 130 | 69.8 | 170 | 91.2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2020 | 10.58 | 0.61 | 130 | 79.4 | 170 | 103.8 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2021 | 11.24 | 0.69 | 130 | 89.6 | 170 | 117.1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2022 | 11.9 | 0.77 | 130 | 100.4 | 170 | 131.3 | 1.5 | 60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2023 | 12.56 | 0.86 | 130 | 111.9 | 170 | 146.3 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 13.22 | 0.95 | 130 | 123.9 | 170 | 162.0 | 15300 | 1.5 | 90 | 94 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2025 | 13.88 | 1.05 | 130 | 136.6 | 170 | 178.6 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2026 | 14.54 | 1.15 | 130 | 149.9 | 170 | 196.0 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 15.2 | 1.26 | 130 | 163.8 | 170 | 214.2 | 26520 | 2 | 156 | 124 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Test Example | Variable DBH growth .66"/yr first 5 y,r drop to .25"/yr next ten, then to .125"/yr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Intl 1/4" |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year | DBH | SfBA/Tree | #Trees/A | BA/A | #Trees/A | BA/A | BF/A | Logs | bf/tree | VBAR | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 | 2 | 0.02 | 130 | 3 | 170 | 4 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 | 2.66 | 0.04 | 130 | 5 | 170 | 7 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 | 3.32 | 0.06 | 130 | 8 | 170 | 10 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2010 | 3.98 | 0.09 | 130 | 11 | 170 | 15 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 | 4.64 | 0.12 | 130 | 15 | 170 | 20 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 | 5.3 | 0.15 | 130 | 20 | 170 | 26 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 5.55 | 0.17 | 130 | 22 | 170 | 29 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 | 5.8 | 0.18 | 130 | 24 | 170 | 31 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 | 6.05 | 0.20 | 130 | 26 | 170 | 34 | 850 | 1 | 5 | 25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 | 6.3 | 0.22 | 130 | 28 | 170 | 37 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 | 6.55 | 0.23 | 130 | 30 | 170 | 40 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 | 6.8 | 0.25 | 130 | 33 | 170 | 43 | 1700 | 1 | 10 | 40 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2019 | 7.05 | 0.27 | 130 | 35 | 170 | 46 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2020 | 7.3 | 0.29 | 130 | 38 | 170 | 49 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2021 | 7.55 | 0.31 | 130 | 40 | 170 | 53 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2022 | 7.8 | 0.33 | 130 | 43 | 170 | 56 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2023 | 7.925 | 0.34 | 130 | 45 | 170 | 58 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 8.05 | 0.35 | 130 | 46 | 170 | 60 | 5100 | 1 | 30 | 85 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2025 | 8.175 | 0.36 | 130 | 47 | 170 | 62 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2026 | 8.3 | 0.38 | 130 | 49 | 170 | 64 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 8.425 | 0.39 | 130 | 50 | 170 | 66 | 6800 | 1 | 40 | 103 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Test Example | Variable DBH growth 1.0"/yr first 5 yr, drop to 0.5"/yr next ten, then to 0.25"/yr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Intl 1/4" |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year | DBH | SfBA/Tree | #Trees/A | BA/A | #Trees/A | BA/A | BF/A | Logs | bf/tree | VBAR | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 | 2 | 0.02 | 130 | 3 | 170 | 4 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 | 3 | 0.05 | 130 | 6 | 170 | 8 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 | 4 | 0.09 | 130 | 11 | 170 | 15 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2010 | 5 | 0.14 | 130 | 18 | 170 | 23 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 | 6 | 0.20 | 130 | 26 | 170 | 33 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 | 7 | 0.27 | 130 | 35 | 170 | 45 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 7.5 | 0.31 | 130 | 40 | 170 | 52 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 | 8 | 0.35 | 130 | 45 | 170 | 59 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 | 8.5 | 0.39 | 130 | 51 | 170 | 67 | 2550 | 1 | 15 | 38 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 | 9 | 0.44 | 130 | 57 | 170 | 75 | 1 | 35 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 | 9.5 | 0.49 | 130 | 64 | 170 | 84 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 | 10 | 0.55 | 130 | 71 | 170 | 93 | 8500 | 1 | 50 | 92 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2019 | 10.5 | 0.60 | 130 | 78 | 170 | 102 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2020 | 11 | 0.66 | 130 | 86 | 170 | 112 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2021 | 11.5 | 0.72 | 130 | 94 | 170 | 123 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2022 | 12 | 0.79 | 130 | 102 | 170 | 134 | 1 | 56 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2023 | 12.25 | 0.82 | 130 | 106 | 170 | 139 | 1.5 | 80 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 12.5 | 0.85 | 130 | 111 | 170 | 145 | 14450 | 1.5 | 85 | 100 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2025 | 12.75 | 0.89 | 130 | 115 | 170 | 151 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2026 | 13 | 0.92 | 130 | 120 | 170 | 157 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 13.25 | 0.96 | 130 | 124 | 170 | 163 | 20400 | 2 | 120 | 125 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Test Example | Constant DBH growth 1"/yr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Intl 1/4" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year | DBH | SfBA/Tree | #Trees/A | BA/A | #Trees/A | BA/A | BF/A | Logs | bf/tree | VBAR |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 | 2 | 0.02 | 130 | 3 | 170 | 4 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 | 3 | 0.05 | 130 | 6 | 170 | 8 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 | 4 | 0.09 | 130 | 11 | 170 | 15 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2010 | 5 | 0.14 | 130 | 18 | 170 | 23 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 | 6 | 0.20 | 130 | 26 | 170 | 33 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 | 7 | 0.27 | 130 | 35 | 170 | 45 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 8 | 0.35 | 130 | 45 | 170 | 59 | 1 | 20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 | 9 | 0.44 | 130 | 57 | 170 | 75 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 | 10 | 0.55 | 130 | 71 | 170 | 93 | 5100 | 1 | 30 | 55 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 | 11 | 0.66 | 130 | 86 | 170 | 112 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 | 12 | 0.79 | 130 | 102 | 170 | 134 | 1 | 60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 | 13 | 0.92 | 130 | 120 | 170 | 157 | 15300 | 1.5 | 90 | 98 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2019 | 14 | 1.07 | 130 | 139 | 170 | 182 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2020 | 15 | 1.23 | 130 | 160 | 170 | 209 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2021 | 16 | 1.40 | 130 | 182 | 170 | 237 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2022 | 17 | 1.58 | 130 | 205 | 170 | 268 | 2 | 206 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2023 | 18 | 1.77 | 130 | 230 | 170 | 300 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 19 | 1.97 | 130 | 256 | 170 | 335 | 44880 | 2 | 264 | 134 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2025 | 20 | 2.18 | 130 | 284 | 170 | 371 | 2.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2026 | 21 | 2.41 | 130 | 313 | 170 | 409 | 2.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 22 | 2.64 | 130 | 343 | 170 | 449 | 73100 | 2.5 | 430 | 163 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Test Example | Constant DBH growth 1"/yr Declining # of trees/A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Intl 1/4" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year | DBH | SfBA/Tree | #Trees/A | BA/A | #Trees | BA/A | BF/A | Logs | bf/tree | VBAR |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 | 2 | 0.02 | 130 | 3 | 170 | 4 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2008 | 3 | 0.05 | 130 | 6 | 170 | 8 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 | 4 | 0.09 | 130 | 11 | 170 | 15 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2010 | 5 | 0.14 | 130 | 18 | 170 | 23 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 | 6 | 0.20 | 130 | 26 | 170 | 33 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2012 | 7 | 0.27 | 130 | 35 | 170 | 45 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 8 | 0.35 | 130 | 45 | 170 | 59 | 2550 | 1 | 15 | 43 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 | 9 | 0.44 | 130 | 57 | 130 | 57 | 2600 | 1 | 20 | 45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 | 10 | 0.55 | 130 | 71 | 130 | 71 | 3900 | 1 | 30 | 55 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2016 | 11 | 0.66 | 130 | 86 | 130 | 86 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 | 12 | 0.79 | 130 | 102 | 130 | 102 | 7800 | 1 | 60 | 76 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 | 13 | 0.92 | 80 | 74 | 80 | 74 | 7200 | 1.5 | 90 | 98 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2019 | 14 | 1.07 | 80 | 86 | 80 | 86 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2020 | 15 | 1.23 | 80 | 98 | 80 | 98 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2021 | 16 | 1.40 | 80 | 112 | 80 | 112 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2022 | 17 | 1.58 | 80 | 126 | 80 | 126 | 2 | 206 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2023 | 18 | 1.77 | 80 | 141 | 80 | 141 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 19 | 1.97 | 80 | 158 | 80 | 158 | 21120 | 2 | 264 | 134 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2025 | 20 | 2.18 | 80 | 175 | 80 | 175 | 2.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2026 | 21 | 2.41 | 80 | 192 | 80 | 192 | 2.5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 22 | 2.64 | 80 | 211 | 80 | 211 | 34400 | 2.5 | 430 | 163 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The early measurements show that a few trees are growing faster than 1.1" in diameter per year with the median around 0.75 inches For optimum value production regular pruning will be needed to reduce the production of large branches. It is clear that this kind of treatment should NOT be started if one will not have the funds to follow through with the needed treatments.
This call happened about 3PM Friday, January 22, 2010. John Kick called to pickup where the conversation with Ms. Clarke had left off. We basically reviewed the items in the Issues Discussion just posted. The significant part of the conversation to me was the apparent openness of John and thus Ms. Clarke to recognize that the things that were mentioned in the Issues Discussion were going to be very difficult to address and that forestry was a significant or strategic sector for this region and that we all had not been doing a very good job of figuring out how to address these issues.
We discussed the evolution of the "Forest Management Tools" and the Federal programs that led up to that and the discussions with senior researchers who discounted the possibility that there were significant differences in the capabilities of MA land to support white pine. A brief discussion ensued about finding a very special stand of pine along Rt. 112 in Jacksonville, VT and how that stand set in motion the process for understanding the ideas in FMT.
One special program that stood out for me was the Cordwood program of the late 70's. This overly prescriptive program resulted in no measurable improvement after ten years. It was hoped that this outcome could be avoided as new efforts evolved.
We discussed the need for a thorough review of the potentials of various kinds of forest treatments and thus there was tacit acceptance of a series of field studies that could start as interpreted walks through forests with successful and unsuccessful outcomes of past treatments. We agreed to continue the discussion and that we were all people of good will who would work to facilitate the best outcomes that we could devise.
One suggestion that I had was to find ways to enable certified Technical Providers to demonstrate the practices that they had found effective in their area - even to the extent of providing them a budget with the expectation that there would be an accounting of the expenditures after the fact and that future funding would depend on the effectiveness of their decisions rather than the current crap shoot to guess what will be funded after significant outlay of effort and funds by the owner and practitioner. This commentary does not imply any kind of endorsement by John of any of the above. He may comment as can anyone else.
Issues Facing Rural America and Humanity in General:
By Alan C. Page, Ph. D. Green Diamond Systems
Issues for Farmers:
Recognition and Development of “Potentials” – potential comes in many different forms and is limited by many factors. Recognition of a crop potential may require accurate timing of inputs and the inputs will require that all resources are present in sufficient abundance to do the job. Recognition of a community potential may require both timing over a long period and application of many kinds of resources with care.
Examples of “potentials” in a local community include:
Distributed generation of electricity
Creation of apprenticeships for youth throughout the community
Establishment of a thorough carbon negative carbon sequestration system
Stabilization of wild habitats by adequately valuing long term ecology as compared to short term development values.
The potential of a forest is a special case for many reasons:
Forests are currently underserved because of a lack of knowledge of how to recognize and develop the potential of young trees. Much has been recently written about preserving and promoting old growth forest stand structures, but there is no valuation system present to facilitate this concept assuming that it is appropriate. On the other hand young trees are the only individuals that can adjust rapidly to changing conditions. As a forest ages the trees get locked into a support system that may become much less dependable as tree height increases (trees stop growing annually in height only when near death.)
Young trees are very responsive but need repeated review and periodic investment over a 40 to 70 year period. Less than adequate treatment at particular times may cause the forest to be set back to an earlier stage of development (choosing to grow new or smaller trees) because the response potential has been lost. Unfortunately this funding is neither reliable from owners nor available through normal financing channels because the forest asset production period is completely outside of the usual debt based financial systems model of valuation. The recent “mark to market” directive from the Bank for International Settlements was disastrous for mortgage holders for many reasons, but exemplifies the situation that forests are in until finally sold. Forests have no current income flow until final harvest. If the quality of the material that grew for so many years is not desired by the market there is no effective compensation possible for the time, resources, and effort expended by the owner.
Carbon Negative Energy Systems – capture the energy in organic materials while retaining ~30% of the incorporated carbon as a stable non-reactive compound (charcoal) as a semi-permanent carbon storage agent. When added to soil as is normal with unconsumed residues in agricultural and forest settings after a fire, this carbon can and generally does improve the soil nutrient retention capacity, soil structure, soil water retention, water quality output, soil strength, plant production rates, etc.
Basically the charcoal (biochar) acts as a very porous substrate for filtration of minerals and organic compounds, but also provides permanent safe havens for many soil micro-organism colonies that are at risk to both soil tillage and climatic variation. The biochar will be much more stable over a range of temperatures than the comparable normal humic acids that are produced from additions of un-charred organic manures.
An incomplete list of biochar effects include:
1. Permanent elevation of soil carbon levels – Amazonian soils have high carbon levels that have been measured to be up to 6000 years old.
2. Porous structure of biochar provides space and protection for soil mio-organisms.
3. Soil productivity increases 3-8 times
4. Fertilizer needs are lessened by 75%
5. Organic compounds are detoxified because of increased residence time in the presence of stable micro-organism populations.
6. Biochar attracts and holds nitrogenous compounds and reduces the loss of NOx from the soil solution.
7. Local soil carbon levels can be used as a carbon offset because the quantities can be measured and described much better than normal organic-reactive carbon.
8. The incorporation of carbon in soils can provide regular employment that will increase over time as soils improve.
Biochar Production:
All charcoals are not equal and biochar is a special subset of what is called charcoal. Charcoal that is not used for biological purposes is obviously not biochar, but the addition of fresh charcoal (that has not been inoculated with local beneficial soil micro-organisms and treated to partially fill the cation exchange capacity) to soil will likely cause problems that will vary with the quality of the site and condition of the resident vegetation.
Carbon Negative Energy System Opportunities:
CNE systems produce biochar as an end product and clean energy in one or more forms and may also produce co-products of significant value. Honeywell has partnered with Ensyn, a bio-oil production systems development company to create several companies to recognize various kinds of co-products from the bio-oil production process. It appears that the char residue from the Ensyn process may not be appropriate for biological use. However, the char may have significant resident times in soil situations so it could be used as a long term carbon storage agent if that were worth doing.
The energy products include:
1. Local electricity generation at rates below several megawatts.
2. Liquid fuel precursors
3. Gaseous low-btu fuels that may contain elevated hydrogen levels.
There are several systems with potential for biochar production that are essentially off the shelf, needing only tuning from other applications to be able to produce biochar and the above products. The systems are expandable to whatever is appropriate and are somewhat larger than those that have been reviewed by PVBI to date.
Issues for Everyone:
Currency Creation:
Currency is basically a vehicle for the transfer of trust from one entity to another. Said another way it is the embodiment of the “full-faith & credit” of a society. It exists mainly to facilitate the completion of transactions of value to a variety of entities, both people and non-humans. The extent to which currency is seen as a source of value in and of it self is a symptom of misplaced priorities within a society. The aggregation of the power to create currency within a small group will in the end be devastating to the general population and the ecosystem that supports them all.
Since the 1913 “Federal” Reserve Act moved currency creation from Congress to a private banking system made up of a few regional banks owned by the largest banks in that region. This set of private banks generate new funds only through debt instruments, either bonds purchased from the US Treasury Department or by loans to public or private entities. Thus in periods such as the late first decade of the 21st century when debt is systematically cancelled the economy is faced with severe currency shortages. This shortage explains the lack of jobs and maintenance activity, but more importantly destroys the community functions that are in place to enable the recognition of the potentials within the community.
One significant outlier in this period of depression is the State of North Dakota. In 1917 the citizens of ND collectively understood that they were being taken advantage of by the large financial entities and the rail roads. They replaced the State legislature and caused the formation of the Bank of ND. This State owned bank has remained solvent and productive for over 90 years and has the mandate to provide low cost funding for priority sectors of the state and to act to stabilize the private community banks. It routinely provides millions of dollars to the State general fund from operating surplus. ND is one of two states with a budgetary surplus this year.
Financing:
There is no mechanism for recognition of strategic functions either nationally or locally.
Very long term projects are off the table because of the expectation by lenders for regular payments of “debt service”. This set of regular payments is imposed by entities that issue credit with the ease of simple spread sheet entries, and have no other responsibility for the issuance of the currency to cover these later payments that may be three or more times the initial credit offering. These long term projects now involve both normal forestry activity and ecosystem protection. The latter has come about because of the need to protect precious habitat from excessive extraction by those who seek short term profit from the exploitation. In another time these areas would normally have just been no-man’s land or areas used sporadically by nomadic tribes. These protection activities now involve a subset of the normal management activities that should be associated with the maintenance of working forests. Recently there has been a large turnover of forest from traditional forest product companies to “holding” companies with close ties to the largest banks with currency creation potential.
Strategic Funding Possibilities:
From the Constitutional mandate, Congress should be able to establish strategic sectors that are funded in a completely different manner than normal commerce and have completely different regulatory protocols. Such protocols might include:
1. No interest – rather charges for the cost of doing business except where these functions are significant to the health and well being of the regional ecosystem where these charges are covered by assessments of the general public.
2. Individuals who participate in these strategic areas would have to agree to a different taxation structure so that the incentive for accumulation of individual wealth would be limited by a graduated tax that would recover most annual payments over a specified level.
3. No payback of extended funds
4. No inflation of assets
5. No speculation of any kind
a. No derivatives
b. No land appreciation
Environmental Issues:
Climate change in whatever form will materially affect the ability of ecosystem services to be provided by the biosphere. Recent projections of rapid climate modification are or should be extremely troubling and need to be dealt with as if it were an issue of life insurance. Regardless of the final outcome, expenditures to limit the possibility of such a failure of the natural climate maintenance system would seem to be justified. Steps should be taken in a manner and in time such that no radical or non-natural engineering should be required. In deed, systems should be advocated that would become part of the normal life of everyone rather than developing special industries that would facilitate irresponsible acts by most.
It is essential that every human can make EXCELLENT environmental decisions as a matter of normal living. These decisions should be seen as supporting the “full-faith & credit” of the region and thus be a necessary part of living in any region. The kinds of decisions that are most important may vary from one region to another, but they must be affordable wherever they must be made.
Recent Comments
-
alansblog said:
Gary,The use of the term "charcoal" is a descriptive term that includes all kinds of charred materials. There are many... read more
on A Brief Discussion of Issues: -
gary said:
What do you mean when you say that biochar is a subset of charcoal? read more
on A Brief Discussion of Issues: -
Joseph francis said:
I really like this blog, you are very good making them. I say that the issue discussed in this blog... read more
on A Finished Proposal for Biochar Test Facility -
alansblog said:
I guess I am talking to myself so it is okay for me to make mistakes because I am only... read more
on The Economy of Life
Joseph,Unfortunately, we are in a situation from which it is almost impossible to move forward because of the damaging effects... read more
on A Finished Proposal for Biochar Test Facility