# Plowing not Drilling



## midcan5

Commodity prices are rising: food, heating, and transportation costs affect all Americans and have global impact. Energy cost is considered by most the major cause, so in a effort to resolve these issues with a single policy and process, 'Plowing' is the answer. Plowing will render off shore drilling unnecessary. Plowing will allow us to rebuild our infrastructure in a less wasteful way and put America back to work.

Plowing is a solution everyone can agree on as it is obvious and transparent. Urban and suburban sprawl have contributed to a loss of farm land and forest. The cause is, well us, not all of us. (I have always used public transportation or a bicycle.) And there is no need to even debate global warming as Plowing alone will help our environment survive far into the future.

What we propose is plowing over houses that are too large and too far from public transportation. Houses that have taken over land once farmed and forests that create byproducts that keep our planet healthy. Exceptions of course would be functional houses: farm homes and barns, worker quarters, and some recreational homes provided they are clustered near the recreational location. 

Once plowed the land could then be returned to farming, reducing energy needs, and providing healthy work and fresh food for the locality near the farms. Lots will be raffled off to those willing to engage in this work. Certain areas will be left as forest. Short trips to market would save an incredible amount of energy. And with food prices reduced locally, mega-farms could feed the world cheaply. Better health will be another plus.

Transportation systems would be created similar to the Paris or the Washington Metro, in a hub spoke formation. Taxes would be levied on citizens based on distance from a Metro station. Ruining our world requires cost and the wasteful need to pay those costs. Any development that extends too far will require a consensus vote by the local people. People using energy cause a situation that only leads to more need and no sensible equilibrium of resources. Growth will be in doing the green thing and not the easy thing. 

The work involved in plowing the houses and returning the land to farming and forests would create numerous job opportunities as housing pieces are recycled to manufacturing campuses at a spoke of the transportation hub. Recycling of these many materials will reduce their costs.

The housing and manufacturing industries would blossom again as we created homes that are friendly, livable, and people can walk to the corner store. Squares and parks would be required. Plus you can hop on the rail to the city for its many amenities. Homes would be similar to original city row or townhouse designs with more space for people and vehicles and privacy yards. Leaving more space would create work opportunities (customers would be nearby) and a friendlier community.

Excessive non-perishable material, stone in particular, from the plowed homes would be shipped by rail to fill in mines and other places where our destruction of the earth is too obvious. Recycling of these materials as we build smaller more efficient homes and communities would be an additional industrial base. Emphasis would be on natural products as opposed to created products that eventually end up in landfills.

Tax structure would be modified so the wasteful in our society, with large houses, those with too many cars, who live far from work, would pay extra taxes. This only seems fair if we want a nice place for our grandchildren to live.

Well folks are you with me, it going to be a long trip, but FDR did it, let's get started.


Footnote: Areas that posses these qualities exist now. Transportation, see the Washington Metro, or any big city subway system. Disney world's monorail is a good model. Princeton New Jersey is an example of a place that maintains it open spaces and its quaint city. Certain shore area have the housing examples and the proximity to neighbors creates a friendly atmosphere. Pennsylvania has a train stop with parking areas that is a preliminary example of the transport hub to the city model. No more bowling alone. It will take time but we can do it, we can save our earth and a child one hundred years from now will still marvel at wilderness and a sea horizon that stretches forever.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Is this your own words? If not provide a source, a link or credit the actual writer. You have any actual thoughts of your own, by the way?

As to plowing? Gonna go back to mules? Those vehicles farmers use are VERY fuel intensive. And they need quite a few of them, trucks included. So much for SAVING fuel.

Now I do agree we need to get back to farming in a big way, but claiming that will solve an energy problem is idiotic as hell. We also need to STOP using corn to make ethanol. Food prices are up because of THAT also.


----------



## midcan5

RetiredGySgt said:


> Is this your own words? If not provide a source, a link or credit the actual writer. You have any actual thoughts of your own, by the way?



LOL - you give me too little credit. Yes, my words.


----------



## thrimironaxe

Outdoors nuts pretending to be environmentalists are probably as guilty of the rape of the natural world as the far right, as this head-in-the-burrow genius makes clear.  Thinking like this led to the cultural revolution in China and to the killing of 2 million people in Cambodia.  The mentality is "my lifestyle is perfect, so I am going to *force* everyone to live just like me."  Everybody back to the land was Pol Pot's big idea too.  Nice going.

If we can find our way back from Oz to the real world, we can start to look for practical solutions.  The good news is that climate change has greatly simplified the environmental equation.  The consequences of significant global warming so outsize every other environmental sin of our species that we can effectively consider this the only real environmental issue, at least in the medium term.  No single solution will do, so I basically favor all of them.

I heat my small, well insulated house 100% with firewood
I support reasonable infrastructure so that I can safely bike my 10mile work commute
I support a drastic increase in nuclear power, to offset coal power
I support eliminating the ban on imported ethanol.  Corn based ethanol is both thermodynamically and economically nonsense (EROI of close to unity).  We need to import cheap Brazilian cane based ethanol (EROI of 10 or so).

As for landfills, they are a great idea ... and I never recycle plastic.  Why not?  I think it is certain that every drop of oil and every puff of natural gas will be produced eventually, no matter what I do.  This stuff has two possible ends: burn for energy or transform into products.  Every plastic bag in a landfill is a few onzes less of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Works for me.


----------



## thrimironaxe

midcan5 said:


> ... tax structure would be modified so the wasteful in our society, with large houses, those with too many cars, who live far from work, would pay extra taxes ...



Amid all the nonsense, I almost missed this.  Want to persuade people to behave well?  Plowing under houses is not the way to do it ... tax the living daylights out of the idiots is.

I was going to install a solar electric system on my rooftop, but two things dissuaded me:

1) My roof faces E, which reduces efficiency by about 30% relative to a S facing roof.
2) The system would have increased the value of my property ... and consequently *increased my property tax*.

#2 is a the way taxes are currently handled in this country.  My small, energy efficient Honda civic also has to pay a "tax" since it is subject to fuel efficiency standards ... but two houses up my cross street is a guy with TWO (2) HUMMER MILITARY VEHICLES ... he pays no such tax, because trucks are exempt from fuel efficiency standards.


----------



## editec

I don't think this is a plan that is going to work.

Certainly it's not one we could implement quickly or cheaply, either.


----------



## dilloduck

thrimironaxe said:


> Amid all the nonsense, I almost missed this.  Want to persuade people to behave well?  Plowing under houses is not the way to do it ... tax the living daylights out of the idiots is.
> 
> I was going to install a solar electric system on my rooftop, but two things dissuaded me:
> 
> 1) My roof faces E, which reduces efficiency by about 30% relative to a S facing roof.
> 2) The system would have increased the value of my property ... and consequently *increased my property tax*.
> 
> #2 is a the way taxes are currently handled in this country.  My small, energy efficient Honda civic also has to pay a "tax" since it is subject to fuel efficiency standards ... but two houses up my cross street is a guy with TWO (2) HUMMER MILITARY VEHICLES ... he pays no such tax, because trucks are exempt from fuel efficiency standards.



I thought extortion was the American way of getting everyone to behave properly.


----------



## thrimironaxe

dilloduck said:


> I thought extortion was the American way of getting everyone to behave properly.



No, not so.  The current paradigm is to regulate via agencies/bureaucrats/inspectors.  The tax on fuel in America, for example, pays for about 80% of the upkeep of federal roads, and is not designed to prevent people from buying hummers.  European nations tax fuel by 4 or 5 dollars per gallon (as opposed to under 25 cents in the US).

The only exception in cigarettes, which are taxed specifically to prevent people from picking up the habit.

Smoking has been in decline in the United States since that tax was put in place.  Such policies work very well.


----------



## midcan5

editec said:


> I don't think this is a plan that is going to work.
> 
> Certainly it's not one we could implement quickly or cheaply, either.




The replies always make me laugh. Humor is what we need. Yes, not easy, but suppose we moved in that direction without mass murder as Thrimironaxe jumps to in his/her limited imagination. 

We were in France a few years ago it occurred to me today that they seem to be working toward something like this, it probably happened naturally. In this country the individual rules and destroying the earth is Ok. The interstate road system made travel easy but it sure screwed up the nation. It made us into oil junkies. 

Without an imaginative realistic plan to solve these issues mine still holds. I do see a big problem with cars though, as they provide an enormous job and manufacturing infrastructure and their care and feeding can't be outsourced.


----------



## Bern80

midcan5 said:


> LOL - you give me too little credit. Yes, my words.



I'll give you credit.  If you really believe that you're fucking moron.  Do you understand the concept of freedom at all?


----------



## dilloduck

thrimironaxe said:


> No, not so.  The current paradigm is to regulate via agencies/bureaucrats/inspectors.  The tax on fuel in America, for example, pays for about 80% of the upkeep of federal roads, and is not designed to prevent people from buying hummers.  European nations tax fuel by 4 or 5 dollars per gallon (as opposed to under 25 cents in the US).
> 
> The only exception in cigarettes, which are taxed specifically to prevent people from picking up the habit.
> 
> Smoking has been in decline in the United States since that tax was put in place.  Such policies work very well.



And if you don't obey a regulation via agencies, bureaucrats or inspectors ?
Better hang on to that wallet !!  Extortion.
Cigarette taxes aren't to prevent people from picking the habit. Who are you kidding? If they want people to stop they can ban them. Maybe the FDA will be brave enough to do just that .


----------



## thrimironaxe

midcan5 said:


> ... suppose we moved in that direction without mass murder as Thrimironaxe jumps to in his/her limited imagination ...



I am really not interested in imagination.  I am interested in reality.

Viewed as some kind of "daydream of utopia" there is nothing wrong with your world view, but in reality it is not very practical.  The only way to convince 99% of the American population to give up their lifestyle in favor of yours would be the barrel of a gun.  You are either idly musing away our limited opportunity for meaningful action to address environmental issues, or you are serious about your ideas and willing to use the methods of Pol Pot to accomplish them.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

I don't think our society would ever start razing houses and using the material to fill mines.


----------



## sitarro

midcan5 said:


> LOL - you give me too little credit. Yes, my words.



Question: Water, where are you going to get it for all of this fabulous farmland .


----------



## Alpha1

Midcan..

_What we propose is plowing over houses that are too large and too far from public transportation. Houses that have taken over land once farmed and forests that create byproducts that keep our planet healthy. Exceptions of course would be functional houses: farm homes and barns, worker quarters, and some recreational homes provided they are clustered near the recreational location._
-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
Surely you jest....Edwards would have to give up his 28,000 sq.ft. homestead ?...

John Kerry would have to limit himself to only one house (mansion) instead of the 4 or 5 he now maintains....

those Hollywood liberals would have to trade-in their 6, 10, 15 million dollar homes for the "good of the planet".....

what a dreamer, what an imagination, what a warped sense of reality, what a moron...*


----------



## Zoomie1980

midcan5 said:


> Commodity prices are rising: food, heating, and transportation costs affect all Americans and have global impact. Energy cost is considered by most the major cause, so in a effort to resolve these issues with a single policy and process, 'Plowing' is the answer. Plowing will render off shore drilling unnecessary. Plowing will allow us to rebuild our infrastructure in a less wasteful way and put America back to work.
> 
> Plowing is a solution everyone can agree on as it is obvious and transparent. Urban and suburban sprawl have contributed to a loss of farm land and forest. The cause is, well us, not all of us. (I have always used public transportation or a bicycle.) And there is no need to even debate global warming as Plowing alone will help our environment survive far into the future.
> 
> What we propose is plowing over houses that are too large and too far from public transportation. Houses that have taken over land once farmed and forests that create byproducts that keep our planet healthy. Exceptions of course would be functional houses: farm homes and barns, worker quarters, and some recreational homes provided they are clustered near the recreational location.
> 
> Once plowed the land could then be returned to farming, reducing energy needs, and providing healthy work and fresh food for the locality near the farms. Lots will be raffled off to those willing to engage in this work. Certain areas will be left as forest. Short trips to market would save an incredible amount of energy. And with food prices reduced locally, mega-farms could feed the world cheaply. Better health will be another plus.
> 
> Transportation systems would be created similar to the Paris or the Washington Metro, in a hub spoke formation. Taxes would be levied on citizens based on distance from a Metro station. Ruining our world requires cost and the wasteful need to pay those costs. Any development that extends too far will require a consensus vote by the local people. People using energy cause a situation that only leads to more need and no sensible equilibrium of resources. Growth will be in doing the green thing and not the easy thing.
> 
> The work involved in plowing the houses and returning the land to farming and forests would create numerous job opportunities as housing pieces are recycled to manufacturing campuses at a spoke of the transportation hub. Recycling of these many materials will reduce their costs.
> 
> The housing and manufacturing industries would blossom again as we created homes that are friendly, livable, and people can walk to the corner store. Squares and parks would be required. Plus you can hop on the rail to the city for its many amenities. Homes would be similar to original city row or townhouse designs with more space for people and vehicles and privacy yards. Leaving more space would create work opportunities (customers would be nearby) and a friendlier community.
> 
> Excessive non-perishable material, stone in particular, from the plowed homes would be shipped by rail to fill in mines and other places where our destruction of the earth is too obvious. Recycling of these materials as we build smaller more efficient homes and communities would be an additional industrial base. Emphasis would be on natural products as opposed to created products that eventually end up in landfills.
> 
> Tax structure would be modified so the wasteful in our society, with large houses, those with too many cars, who live far from work, would pay extra taxes. This only seems fair if we want a nice place for our grandchildren to live.
> 
> Well folks are you with me, it going to be a long trip, but FDR did it, let's get started.
> 
> 
> Footnote: Areas that posses these qualities exist now. Transportation, see the Washington Metro, or any big city subway system. Disney world's monorail is a good model. Princeton New Jersey is an example of a place that maintains it open spaces and its quaint city. Certain shore area have the housing examples and the proximity to neighbors creates a friendly atmosphere. Pennsylvania has a train stop with parking areas that is a preliminary example of the transport hub to the city model. No more bowling alone. It will take time but we can do it, we can save our earth and a child one hundred years from now will still marvel at wilderness and a sea horizon that stretches forever.



More Socialist/Communist idiocy.  If I want a big house and have the money I WILL have a big house and there is nothing you would/could/should/will/can/shall do about it.  It's call FREEDOM.  Something you have no concept of.


----------



## Zoomie1980

midcan5 said:


> The replies always make me laugh. Humor is what we need. Yes, not easy, but suppose we moved in that direction without mass murder as Thrimironaxe jumps to in his/her limited imagination.
> 
> We were in France a few years ago it occurred to me today that they seem to be working toward something like this, it probably happened naturally. In this country the individual rules and destroying the earth is Ok. The interstate road system made travel easy but it sure screwed up the nation. It made us into oil junkies.
> 
> Without an imaginative realistic plan to solve these issues mine still holds. I do see a big problem with cars though, as they provide an enormous job and manufacturing infrastructure and their care and feeding can't be outsourced.



The INDIVIDUAL is what America was FOUNDED ON.  The collective is the idea of Karl Marx and has been PROVEN to have NO VALUE.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Hey let's just have the government build a lot of dormitories and we can all live there.  We can all get a government issued bike with a basket on the front and a bell on the handlebars.  Lights out at 10 PM and thermostats remotely controlled by Al Gore himself.

We can all eat a government approved diet and wear government approved clothing Just think we will all be equal and live in peace love and harmony with all the people and creatures of the earth..

ROTFLMAO or rather
HOTTTPMGO

(holding on to the toilet puking my guts out)


----------



## midcan5

sitarro said:


> Question: Water, where are you going to get it for all of this fabulous farmland .



In the northeast where we live it is no problem. Ever see how the Amish live?


----------



## midcan5

Zoomie1980 said:


> More Socialist/Communist idiocy.  If I want a big house and have the money I WILL have a big house and there is nothing you would/could/should/will/can/shall do about it.  It's call FREEDOM.  Something you have no concept of.



That depends on how you view your use of the earth that really belongs to all. It could be you are just stupid or greedy or destroying the earth for the future. It could be all of these things - uses big words and concepts you don't understand is not an answer.


----------



## midcan5

LordBrownTrout said:


> I don't think our society would ever start razing houses and using the material to fill mines.



I surely realize that - this is a bit tongue in cheek - but that doesn't make it a bad idea. Thought exercises are sometimes helpful.


----------



## Zoomie1980

midcan5 said:


> That depends on how you view your use of the earth that really belongs to all. It could be you are just stupid or greedy or destroying the earth for the future. It could be all of these things - uses big words and concepts you don't understand is not an answer.



Keep popping those qualoods....makes reality tolerable for loons like you.


----------



## midcan5

Zoomie1980 said:


> Keep popping those qualoods....makes reality tolerable for loons like you.



Not an answer. So I assume stupid!


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

Tearing up perfectly good houses would be a colossal waste. And how exactly do you get people to give up their houses? 

There are benefits to changing our development patterns, yes. But you don't need more government, you need less. 

* Local building codes will almost always have parking lot minimums. Thus we see so many parking lots that waste huge amounts of space and are rarely filled. Abolish these laws, and if a store doesn't have enough parking they will go bankrupt! As development grows outward, the older parking lots ought to be filling in with denser development (and in some cases you'll see this, but it's still limited)

* Eliminate property taxes based on land value. If you're going to have property taxes, base them on square footage. That way, single-story development doesn't have a tax advantage. Builders can also build things that aren't so ugly--currently, if you build a nice dignified building it's worth more so it gets taxed more. 

* Auction off government roads. Interstates would be the easiest. Let market rates prevail, and traffic jams will disappear overnight. Different sections of roads will be priced higher or lower depending on demand and time of day. 

Now imagine what happens once people are faced with a toll as soon as they leave their subdivision. Suddenly, living in a community laid out the old fashioned way makes sense--you have shops and whatnot at the center, within walking distance for many people. 

Existing master planned communities can be rehabbed too, believe it or not. Many will have a community center, golf course, etc. nearby. Existing malls can be rehabbed, in fact there is an architectural firm I've seen somewhere on the web that specializes in that. They add apartments on top of the shops, then the parking lot can eventually fill in with houses. Parking garages can compensate for lost parking, although it's not always necessary, as you still have parallel parking, just like towns built before WWII. 

Once you give developers incentive to build up instead of out, then mass transit becomes more feasible. Private bus companies can pick people up at one town center and drop them off at another. Road companies can reserve lanes for busses, too. This is critical, because the main complaint of busses vs. trains is, you get stuck in traffic.


----------



## editec

thrimironaxe said:


> The only exception in cigarettes, which are taxed specifically to prevent people from picking up the habit.


 
Silly boy. 

Taxing cigarettes is more about generating revenue for the States than anything else. Right now I pay about $3.00 taxes on a pack of butts.

In fact, the state of Maine is concerned about the fact that tobacco revenues are dropping (see: Maine:Cigarette tax shortfall burning hole in budget)

If every smoker in Maine stopped paying taxes on tobacco, the government would lose about $160 million dollars a YEAR.

In a state with a total budget of about $6.3 billion, that's not an insignificant revenue source ...*taxes on tobacco account for about about 2.5% of the state's total revenues.*




> Smoking has been in decline in the United States since that tax was put in place. Such policies work very well.


 
The prevailence of smoking had been declining for years before the taxing of smokes started to become so predatory.


----------



## thrimironaxe

editec said:


> ... Right now I pay about $3.00 taxes on a pack of butts ...



The difference between cigarette taxes and dirty fuel taxes is the victim.  The cigarette tax is designed to protect you from yourself.  I do not think government should be in this business, and I oppose cigarette taxes.  However, they *do* reduce smoking rates, as intended.  The inverse correlation between cigarette taxes and smoking rates has been shown repeatedly both in the Untied States and in every other nation that has attempted such programs.  You point out that many states continue to loose revenue from such taxes, even as the tax rates go up.  Are you so blinded by your addiction that you can't work out what this means by yourself?  Smoking rates are plummeting.

I don't agree with the taxes.  You are an adult, and if you want to kill yourself then I think that is your choice.  Dirty fuel is completely different. If you drive a Hummer, everyone else gets to pay for your "choice".  In that case, I think government should get involved.


----------



## Zoomie1980

thrimironaxe said:


> The difference between cigarette taxes and dirty fuel taxes is the victim.  The cigarette tax is designed to protect you from yourself.  I do not think government should be in this business, and I oppose cigarette taxes.  However, they *do* reduce smoking rates, as intended.  The inverse correlation between cigarette taxes and smoking rates has been shown repeatedly both in the Untied States and in every other nation that has attempted such programs.  You point out that many states continue to loose revenue from such taxes, even as the tax rates go up.  Are you so blinded by your addiction that you can't work out what this means by yourself?  Smoking rates are plummeting.
> 
> I don't agree with the taxes.  You are an adult, and if you want to kill yourself then I think that is your choice.  Dirty fuel is completely different. If you drive a Hummer, everyone else gets to pay for your "choice".  In that case, I think government should get involved.



When did you pay my gasoline bill for my Hummer?  I seem to keep getting these huge credit card bills with gasoline station charges on them.....  You want to pick up a few of those for me?


----------



## JuniorCitizen

hahaha


----------



## midcan5

As I drive around the Philly burbs, I see more Hillary signs on lawns than Trump signs but when I see a Trump sign I take note of the automobile. Guess what?  They are almost always foreign. The have the pretentious Lexus or Audi, the less rich the Hyundai or Toyota. This makes me smile. The very people who want to make America great again support and advertise for foreign nations. Too funny. So today when I saw this article it reminded me of this piece I wrote when Sarah Palin was saying, drill baby drill. Interesting.

Small factories.  A few still exist around Philly and I sometimes see the workers leaving and think how long will it last?  

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/b...as-a-weapon-in-the-fight-against-poverty.html

"There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand.  Resolve, then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tiny blasts of tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us."  Pogo


----------



## Old Rocks

midcan5 said:


> As I drive around the Philly burbs, I see more Hillary signs on lawns than Trump signs but when I see a Trump sign I take note of the automobile. Guess what?  They are almost always foreign. The have the pretentious Lexus or Audi, the less rich the Hyundai or Toyota. This makes me smile. The very people who want to make America great again support and advertise for foreign nations. Too funny. So today when I saw this article it reminded me of this piece I wrote when Sarah Palin was saying, drill baby drill. Interesting.
> 
> Small factories.  A few still exist around Philly and I sometimes see the workers leaving and think how long will it last?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/b...as-a-weapon-in-the-fight-against-poverty.html
> 
> "There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand.  Resolve, then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tiny blasts of tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us."  Pogo


One of the oddest things on this board is the fact that almost all the 'Conservatives' here that support Trump, never miss an opportunity to diss the Tesla automobile. Yet, the Tesla is over 90% made in America, the highest rate of any automobile made. And it is a cutting edge vehicle, the fastest auto 0 to the legal limit of any mass produced vehicle in the world. Runs on electricity, which you can produce yourself, or take off the grid for pennies on the dollar compared the gasoline that would be necessary to propel a 3 ton luxury vehicle with and ICE. Yet they constantly talk about 'making America great again', but never miss an opportunity to denigrate the products that would do that. LOL


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> One of the oddest things on this board is the fact that almost all the 'Conservatives' here that support Trump, never miss an opportunity to diss the Tesla automobile. Yet, the Tesla is over 90% made in America, the highest rate of any automobile made.
> No it is not 90%, you failed to prove that in another thread Old Crock, Crock lies about everything. Besides, just because a Porta John is made in the USA, is no reason to proclaim they do not stink!


----------



## Shrimpbox

Rural Character in America’s Metropolitan Areas | Newgeography.com

Let's plow under the continual fertilizer produced by the left and do something productive.


----------



## midcan5

Egads, it dawned on me I already had a 'green new deal' plan (?) in 2008. I have to re-read and edit but thought this kinda funny.  

Home (2009)  Full Movie is on YouTube


----------



## bripat9643

midcan5 said:


> Commodity prices are rising: food, heating, and transportation costs affect all Americans and have global impact. Energy cost is considered by most the major cause, so in a effort to resolve these issues with a single policy and process, 'Plowing' is the answer. Plowing will render off shore drilling unnecessary. Plowing will allow us to rebuild our infrastructure in a less wasteful way and put America back to work.
> 
> Plowing is a solution everyone can agree on as it is obvious and transparent. Urban and suburban sprawl have contributed to a loss of farm land and forest. The cause is, well us, not all of us. (I have always used public transportation or a bicycle.) And there is no need to even debate global warming as Plowing alone will help our environment survive far into the future.
> 
> What we propose is plowing over houses that are too large and too far from public transportation. Houses that have taken over land once farmed and forests that create byproducts that keep our planet healthy. Exceptions of course would be functional houses: farm homes and barns, worker quarters, and some recreational homes provided they are clustered near the recreational location.
> 
> Once plowed the land could then be returned to farming, reducing energy needs, and providing healthy work and fresh food for the locality near the farms. Lots will be raffled off to those willing to engage in this work. Certain areas will be left as forest. Short trips to market would save an incredible amount of energy. And with food prices reduced locally, mega-farms could feed the world cheaply. Better health will be another plus.
> 
> Transportation systems would be created similar to the Paris or the Washington Metro, in a hub spoke formation. Taxes would be levied on citizens based on distance from a Metro station. Ruining our world requires cost and the wasteful need to pay those costs. Any development that extends too far will require a consensus vote by the local people. People using energy cause a situation that only leads to more need and no sensible equilibrium of resources. Growth will be in doing the green thing and not the easy thing.
> 
> The work involved in plowing the houses and returning the land to farming and forests would create numerous job opportunities as housing pieces are recycled to manufacturing campuses at a spoke of the transportation hub. Recycling of these many materials will reduce their costs.
> 
> The housing and manufacturing industries would blossom again as we created homes that are friendly, livable, and people can walk to the corner store. Squares and parks would be required. Plus you can hop on the rail to the city for its many amenities. Homes would be similar to original city row or townhouse designs with more space for people and vehicles and privacy yards. Leaving more space would create work opportunities (customers would be nearby) and a friendlier community.
> 
> Excessive non-perishable material, stone in particular, from the plowed homes would be shipped by rail to fill in mines and other places where our destruction of the earth is too obvious. Recycling of these materials as we build smaller more efficient homes and communities would be an additional industrial base. Emphasis would be on natural products as opposed to created products that eventually end up in landfills.
> 
> Tax structure would be modified so the wasteful in our society, with large houses, those with too many cars, who live far from work, would pay extra taxes. This only seems fair if we want a nice place for our grandchildren to live.
> 
> Well folks are you with me, it going to be a long trip, but FDR did it, let's get started.
> 
> 
> Footnote: Areas that posses these qualities exist now. Transportation, see the Washington Metro, or any big city subway system. Disney world's monorail is a good model. Princeton New Jersey is an example of a place that maintains it open spaces and its quaint city. Certain shore area have the housing examples and the proximity to neighbors creates a friendly atmosphere. Pennsylvania has a train stop with parking areas that is a preliminary example of the transport hub to the city model. No more bowling alone. It will take time but we can do it, we can save our earth and a child one hundred years from now will still marvel at wilderness and a sea horizon that stretches forever.


Communism, in other words.


----------



## bripat9643

Bern80 said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL - you give me too little credit. Yes, my words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you credit.  If you really believe that you're fucking moron.  Do you understand the concept of freedom at all?
Click to expand...

No, he doesn't.  He's a leftist, which means he's a servile worm with delusions of grandeur.


----------



## Blues Man

midcan5 said:


> Commodity prices are rising: food, heating, and transportation costs affect all Americans and have global impact. Energy cost is considered by most the major cause, so in a effort to resolve these issues with a single policy and process, 'Plowing' is the answer. Plowing will render off shore drilling unnecessary. Plowing will allow us to rebuild our infrastructure in a less wasteful way and put America back to work.
> 
> Plowing is a solution everyone can agree on as it is obvious and transparent. Urban and suburban sprawl have contributed to a loss of farm land and forest. The cause is, well us, not all of us. (I have always used public transportation or a bicycle.) And there is no need to even debate global warming as Plowing alone will help our environment survive far into the future.
> 
> What we propose is plowing over houses that are too large and too far from public transportation. Houses that have taken over land once farmed and forests that create byproducts that keep our planet healthy. Exceptions of course would be functional houses: farm homes and barns, worker quarters, and some recreational homes provided they are clustered near the recreational location.
> 
> Once plowed the land could then be returned to farming, reducing energy needs, and providing healthy work and fresh food for the locality near the farms. Lots will be raffled off to those willing to engage in this work. Certain areas will be left as forest. Short trips to market would save an incredible amount of energy. And with food prices reduced locally, mega-farms could feed the world cheaply. Better health will be another plus.
> 
> Transportation systems would be created similar to the Paris or the Washington Metro, in a hub spoke formation. Taxes would be levied on citizens based on distance from a Metro station. Ruining our world requires cost and the wasteful need to pay those costs. Any development that extends too far will require a consensus vote by the local people. People using energy cause a situation that only leads to more need and no sensible equilibrium of resources. Growth will be in doing the green thing and not the easy thing.
> 
> The work involved in plowing the houses and returning the land to farming and forests would create numerous job opportunities as housing pieces are recycled to manufacturing campuses at a spoke of the transportation hub. Recycling of these many materials will reduce their costs.
> 
> The housing and manufacturing industries would blossom again as we created homes that are friendly, livable, and people can walk to the corner store. Squares and parks would be required. Plus you can hop on the rail to the city for its many amenities. Homes would be similar to original city row or townhouse designs with more space for people and vehicles and privacy yards. Leaving more space would create work opportunities (customers would be nearby) and a friendlier community.
> 
> Excessive non-perishable material, stone in particular, from the plowed homes would be shipped by rail to fill in mines and other places where our destruction of the earth is too obvious. Recycling of these materials as we build smaller more efficient homes and communities would be an additional industrial base. Emphasis would be on natural products as opposed to created products that eventually end up in landfills.
> 
> Tax structure would be modified so the wasteful in our society, with large houses, those with too many cars, who live far from work, would pay extra taxes. This only seems fair if we want a nice place for our grandchildren to live.
> 
> Well folks are you with me, it going to be a long trip, but FDR did it, let's get started.
> 
> 
> Footnote: Areas that posses these qualities exist now. Transportation, see the Washington Metro, or any big city subway system. Disney world's monorail is a good model. Princeton New Jersey is an example of a place that maintains it open spaces and its quaint city. Certain shore area have the housing examples and the proximity to neighbors creates a friendly atmosphere. Pennsylvania has a train stop with parking areas that is a preliminary example of the transport hub to the city model. No more bowling alone. It will take time but we can do it, we can save our earth and a child one hundred years from now will still marvel at wilderness and a sea horizon that stretches forever.



So you want someone else to tell you where you can live, how big your house should be what you should eat how high to set your thermostat what car to drive or even if you can own a car etc etc

I don't know about you but I don't need anyone to tell me what to do


----------

