Incredibly Carbonaceous
Permalink +Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 1:59 pm // Tip Johnson
It looks like we've got a pretty watered down climate accord. It doesn't provide accountability and won't limit warming to within the two degree Celsius out-of-control climate tipping point. Folks that live in the Maldives are miffed. Their home is probably going to disappear, after being ravaged by storms. Lots of island and coastal peoples are going to be displaced, along with some prime agricultural resources. Where will they go? What will they eat? Climate change is already credited with extensive droughts in Africa and Australia. In Australia, meteorologists recently stopped counting the days without rain. They now say that the climate has changed and drought is here to stay.For a long while, we have known it was probably not very smart to return the carbon sequestered in fossil fuels into the atmosphere. Now we know it is going to kill people. Lots of them. Isn't that murder? It's a bit like Bhopal, really. "Yes, if we have a leak it will kill thousands, but we can't really afford to provide all the necessary safeguards. It's not economically viable." Will traders in carbon be liable for the future deaths and displacement of millions of people? I kinda doubt it.
Seems to me that the approach to a climate agreement is all wrong. The whole carbon emissions trading scheme seems complicated and subject to abuse. What's wrong with just taxing fossil fuels as they come out of the ground? Period. Don't dig them up. If you do, pay the real costs. Set some limits based upon population and standard of living, then tax the bejeezus out of over-limit consumption. Keep taxing it as it's marketed to industry and consumed. Without driving the price up to reflect true, unsubsidized, un-externalized costs, we actively prevent alternatives from becoming competitive in the market. With all the talk of finding ways to sequester excess carbon from the atmosphere, doesn't it seem reasonable to simply leave fossil fuels in the ground? We shouldn't even call it fuel. Fossilized carbon should have more value in the ground than burning up into the air.
Want to solve some of the difficult problems in our economy? Having no productive basis for replacing the jobs just lost in the financial meltdown is a huge hurdle to overcome. A Manhattan-style project on alternative energy could substantially fill that gap. But, as long as we demand cheap fuel, disdain taxes and fiddle while the pools of oil burn, we are probably destined to watch our economy remain in slow decay. Any thoughts?
Comments (9)
To add a comment, click here to login or register.
Tip Johnson // Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 2:34 pm
Oh yeah, and...;Happy Holidays!
Hue Beattie // Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 3:37 pm
As Dillon said- the answer is blowing in the wind.
The Juan de Fuca straight is where it blows the most often.
B.P.A. would be capable of tapping into this energy stream and we would have power to the battery powered transportation of the near future.
The Juan de Fuca straight is where it blows the most often.
B.P.A. would be capable of tapping into this energy stream and we would have power to the battery powered transportation of the near future.
Craig Mayberry // Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 9:00 pm
There is a structural issue with paying for the investment required for renewable energy. Of course it is going to be more expensive in the short term, every investment is. Carbon trading will do nothing but line the pockets of corporations and the government.
Most utilities are heavily regulated and operate on a cost plus basis. Price increases have to be approved by panel based on the cost structure. There is nothing in the calculation that allows the plus for renewable energy development and building new infrastructure.
New investment is always paid for by the end consumer. Back in the 80’s the automobile industry went through a heavy capital investment in automation. This investment was funded by every person that bought a car and ultimately paid back to consumers through lower costs and therefore lower pricing. Raising taxes and allocating will be incredibly inefficient (along the lines of TARP and the stimulus where the people who really need the money do not get it and the people who do not need the money will end up with it).
At the end of the day we have to pay for the movement from fossil fuels to renewable energy. It will help the environment, but it is far better economically. Fossil fuel energy is expensive to build and then expensive to keep operating (you have ongoing, expensive input costs to keep them running). Renewable energy is expensive to build, but then has very low operating costs once in place (the inputs are free). Over the long term the cost of renewable energy will be far lower and better for everyone (economically and environmentally).
The current arguments are getting us no where and the current “options” will not get us any further along. At the end of the day the economic analysis needs to be done, the people need to be sold on it that the prices will come down and then the cost of the investment needs to be built into the purchasing price. Markets deal with these issues all of the time, we have computers and other high tech gadgets because markets were allowed to work. Trying to proxy it through cap and trade or taxes is a dead end that will get us no where. It is our own stupid government rules that are getting in the way on this one, creating more rules is not going to get us out.
Most utilities are heavily regulated and operate on a cost plus basis. Price increases have to be approved by panel based on the cost structure. There is nothing in the calculation that allows the plus for renewable energy development and building new infrastructure.
New investment is always paid for by the end consumer. Back in the 80’s the automobile industry went through a heavy capital investment in automation. This investment was funded by every person that bought a car and ultimately paid back to consumers through lower costs and therefore lower pricing. Raising taxes and allocating will be incredibly inefficient (along the lines of TARP and the stimulus where the people who really need the money do not get it and the people who do not need the money will end up with it).
At the end of the day we have to pay for the movement from fossil fuels to renewable energy. It will help the environment, but it is far better economically. Fossil fuel energy is expensive to build and then expensive to keep operating (you have ongoing, expensive input costs to keep them running). Renewable energy is expensive to build, but then has very low operating costs once in place (the inputs are free). Over the long term the cost of renewable energy will be far lower and better for everyone (economically and environmentally).
The current arguments are getting us no where and the current “options” will not get us any further along. At the end of the day the economic analysis needs to be done, the people need to be sold on it that the prices will come down and then the cost of the investment needs to be built into the purchasing price. Markets deal with these issues all of the time, we have computers and other high tech gadgets because markets were allowed to work. Trying to proxy it through cap and trade or taxes is a dead end that will get us no where. It is our own stupid government rules that are getting in the way on this one, creating more rules is not going to get us out.
Tip Johnson // Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 9:34 pm
Craig, do you agree the cost of fossilized carbon for fuel should be higher? Got any ideas on getting the price to reflect the true costs? Do you believe artificially low prices limit entry of alternatives into the market?
Does it makes sense to eliminate subsidies on harmful technologies? Is it reasonable to provide subsidies for helpful ones? Where is the balance, economically speaking?
Does it makes sense to eliminate subsidies on harmful technologies? Is it reasonable to provide subsidies for helpful ones? Where is the balance, economically speaking?
Paul de Armond // Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 12:19 am
As Skeeter says, “Mother Nature bats last.”
There’s no market solution for the problem. It will all sort itself out in the end. Sorta like that dinosaur infestation, but slower.
There’s no market solution for the problem. It will all sort itself out in the end. Sorta like that dinosaur infestation, but slower.
Andy Rowlson // Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 8:18 pm
Can’t we keep it simple? Impose a tax on the use of non-renewable fuel. Say, for example, a $1 on a gallon of gas. Or $2., or $3...; The more you use, the more tax you pay. Increase the tax over time, allowing economies and people to adopt...;.
Invest the tax in alternative energy research and delivery.
Over time, alternative energy becomes more viable, non-renewable energy less so.
This seems so straightforward. Why is it then, that people simply do NOT support the increased tax on fuel? Heck, we can’t raise the tax .09 cents a gallon in this state without great angst. Unfortunately, it seems a waste of breath, or ink, to even discuss a $1 extra tax...;
Invest the tax in alternative energy research and delivery.
Over time, alternative energy becomes more viable, non-renewable energy less so.
This seems so straightforward. Why is it then, that people simply do NOT support the increased tax on fuel? Heck, we can’t raise the tax .09 cents a gallon in this state without great angst. Unfortunately, it seems a waste of breath, or ink, to even discuss a $1 extra tax...;
Craig Mayberry // Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 9:21 pm
Tip (and others),
First, you cannot increase the price of gas right now because there are not viable alternatives in most communities. The mass transit system in Washington State (and most other states) is pathetic at best and not a viable option for almost everyone. If you increase the cost of gas substantially, you end up punishing people because they do not have any other option.
I think you have to deal with this in stages. First, you need to fund and operate an efficient bus system (light rail is not an economically viable option). Second, you need to deal with the energy from the electricity side first and have viable alternative energy to provide homes heat and electricity (this can be done concurrently with the first step). Third, then you can deal with transportation energy, but not until the first two are completed.
Frankly, right now there is not a great transportation alternative for cars. Electrical vehicles are great, but if you are burning fossil fuel to charge the battery, have you really solved anything? Ethanol is not an option because of the energy input into growing corn. Government will have to fund research, which they should, but they need to take a portfolio approach and try many things and not try to pick a solution before they get started.
Externalities are a big deal with energy and certainly baking in the externality cost in the price would help people make better informed decisions, but again if they do not have any other option all it amounts to is a tax and makes it even more difficult for people to live. Once options exist, then you can use subsidies to help drive behavior by eliminating subsidies of fossil fuels and increase them for renewable energy, but if you did that today it would lead to chaos and cause more problems than you solve.
First, you cannot increase the price of gas right now because there are not viable alternatives in most communities. The mass transit system in Washington State (and most other states) is pathetic at best and not a viable option for almost everyone. If you increase the cost of gas substantially, you end up punishing people because they do not have any other option.
I think you have to deal with this in stages. First, you need to fund and operate an efficient bus system (light rail is not an economically viable option). Second, you need to deal with the energy from the electricity side first and have viable alternative energy to provide homes heat and electricity (this can be done concurrently with the first step). Third, then you can deal with transportation energy, but not until the first two are completed.
Frankly, right now there is not a great transportation alternative for cars. Electrical vehicles are great, but if you are burning fossil fuel to charge the battery, have you really solved anything? Ethanol is not an option because of the energy input into growing corn. Government will have to fund research, which they should, but they need to take a portfolio approach and try many things and not try to pick a solution before they get started.
Externalities are a big deal with energy and certainly baking in the externality cost in the price would help people make better informed decisions, but again if they do not have any other option all it amounts to is a tax and makes it even more difficult for people to live. Once options exist, then you can use subsidies to help drive behavior by eliminating subsidies of fossil fuels and increase them for renewable energy, but if you did that today it would lead to chaos and cause more problems than you solve.
Tip Johnson // Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 1:43 am
For quite a time, Dreadlock Doug kept babbling on about pneumatic vehicles as the perfect solution for urban/village driving. OK, if you are going to Montana, or hauling a load, you might need fuel, but around town, blowing air around harms nothing.
One of the big constraints for a lot of alternative energy is how to store it up for when you need it. Batteries are a toxic mess and long term environmental liability. Could we use sunshine, wind, tides and falling rain to compress air for later use?
I was intolerant of it until I spoke with a mining engineer who informed me that many mining locomotives were pneumatically powered for more than a century. That got my attention because underground locomotives are not lightweight, light duty machines, often classified in 11 or 13 ton models.
Researching the topic, I learned that Paris long ran pneumatic streetcars, and that the first car to arrive in Seattle was pneumatic, having come from Chicago. Moreover, pneumatic drive technology was all the rage in engineering schools for decades prior to the advent of carbon-based steam power and refined petroleum fuels.
Some suggest that petroleum profits were strategically invested into university programs to specifically expunge nearly a century of pneumatic engineering from college course works.
While inventorying an equipment yard in Arizona, I saw one of these pneumatic mining locomotives. It’s a gigantic chunk of steel. Imagining something like that moving even 100 yards makes it hard to believe there’s any reason anyone can’t travel all over town, no problem, moving a few folks and groceries.
Could our investments in automobile infrastructure and petro-fuels be blindng us to ready-at-hand alternatives?
One of the big constraints for a lot of alternative energy is how to store it up for when you need it. Batteries are a toxic mess and long term environmental liability. Could we use sunshine, wind, tides and falling rain to compress air for later use?
I was intolerant of it until I spoke with a mining engineer who informed me that many mining locomotives were pneumatically powered for more than a century. That got my attention because underground locomotives are not lightweight, light duty machines, often classified in 11 or 13 ton models.
Researching the topic, I learned that Paris long ran pneumatic streetcars, and that the first car to arrive in Seattle was pneumatic, having come from Chicago. Moreover, pneumatic drive technology was all the rage in engineering schools for decades prior to the advent of carbon-based steam power and refined petroleum fuels.
Some suggest that petroleum profits were strategically invested into university programs to specifically expunge nearly a century of pneumatic engineering from college course works.
While inventorying an equipment yard in Arizona, I saw one of these pneumatic mining locomotives. It’s a gigantic chunk of steel. Imagining something like that moving even 100 yards makes it hard to believe there’s any reason anyone can’t travel all over town, no problem, moving a few folks and groceries.
Could our investments in automobile infrastructure and petro-fuels be blindng us to ready-at-hand alternatives?
Doug karlberg // Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 1:18 pm
Dreadlock Doug wishes to give some input on the externialities of Tip’s output.
You are dancing around with hot compressed air and avoiding the critical question which hold the key to this debate.
Let me subsidize your thought process. Energy is only created today by three sources. Nuclear, Fossil fuels, and renewables (which have their own environmental impacts). How we distribute and store is really secondary.
If we burn coal to fuel our electric cars or run an air compressor: What have we really solved? Answers which seem simple but turn out to be simplistic only slows down the progress toward real answer, which we all agree that we do need.
Turning off everyone’s light switch and having leaders give lectures about shared sacrifice, while they ride around in limos and corporate jets, doesn’t hold much promise in my opinion.
Taxing us more for gas, I can see the wisdom in, except for one very minor problem: This will generate a large pile of money and the gluttonous folks in DC, and their sucker fish groupies will steal most of it, and likely waste the balance.
Leaving a little funding for educational outreach.
Expecting miracles from a failing political systems, seems to be fantasy too far.
We all need to understand that it is okay to have a gradual transition. I don’t care how anxious people are, we are not going to give up our energy utilization systems we have built up over decades, overnight.
Don’t believe me? I just had to stop typing and put another log on the fire.
Humans have learned to really, really, like using energy a lot. Take it from them unfairly, arbitrarily, or by making dumb decisions, and they will revolt.
Making it easy to save wasted energy, seems to hold the most promise during this initial transition. Remember that lowering energy consumption lowers personal bills, and that is an incentive already in place.
Nuclear holds value during this transition.
I suspect that local solutions will be the quickest, most cost effective, and doable in the short run.
Maybe we should all turn off our computers during the holidays.
Merry Christmas
You are dancing around with hot compressed air and avoiding the critical question which hold the key to this debate.
Let me subsidize your thought process. Energy is only created today by three sources. Nuclear, Fossil fuels, and renewables (which have their own environmental impacts). How we distribute and store is really secondary.
If we burn coal to fuel our electric cars or run an air compressor: What have we really solved? Answers which seem simple but turn out to be simplistic only slows down the progress toward real answer, which we all agree that we do need.
Turning off everyone’s light switch and having leaders give lectures about shared sacrifice, while they ride around in limos and corporate jets, doesn’t hold much promise in my opinion.
Taxing us more for gas, I can see the wisdom in, except for one very minor problem: This will generate a large pile of money and the gluttonous folks in DC, and their sucker fish groupies will steal most of it, and likely waste the balance.
Leaving a little funding for educational outreach.
Expecting miracles from a failing political systems, seems to be fantasy too far.
We all need to understand that it is okay to have a gradual transition. I don’t care how anxious people are, we are not going to give up our energy utilization systems we have built up over decades, overnight.
Don’t believe me? I just had to stop typing and put another log on the fire.
Humans have learned to really, really, like using energy a lot. Take it from them unfairly, arbitrarily, or by making dumb decisions, and they will revolt.
Making it easy to save wasted energy, seems to hold the most promise during this initial transition. Remember that lowering energy consumption lowers personal bills, and that is an incentive already in place.
Nuclear holds value during this transition.
I suspect that local solutions will be the quickest, most cost effective, and doable in the short run.
Maybe we should all turn off our computers during the holidays.
Merry Christmas
The Big Business of Breast Cancer
Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 8:14 am // Guest writer
There’s no profit in searching for causes, and we know there's no real cure. But there's big money in the detection and treatment of breast cancer.
1 comments; last on Feb 08, 2012
An inexpensive way to save children’s lives
Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 1:41 pm // John Servais
Bellingham is slowly installing flashing yellow lights for school zones. This is far better than trapping drivers with speed zone cameras. But, no city revenue.
1 comments; last on Feb 07, 2012
UPDATE: City of Bham Moonlighting Issue - More Documents
Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 10:58 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley updates us on the latest facts coming to light about City of Bellingham employee moonlighting2 comments; last on Feb 01, 2012
Compliance, Noncompliance and Invalidity in Whatcom County
Sun, Jan 29, 2012, 10:16 pm // Wendy Harris
The County's rural planning actions have not just failed to comply with the GMA...they have contradicted the goals of the GMA.3 comments; last on Feb 05, 2012
A Worm’s Eye View of our local WorkSource Center
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 9:42 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley visits the local WorkSource center and interviews the regional director
0 comments
Watch out for basement flooding
Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 9:03 pm // Paul de Armond
Stormwater surge may back up sewers
5 comments; last on Jan 21, 2012
The Political Junkie interviews Kathy Kershner
Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 4:29 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley discusses the Jail, Jack Louws, and an impartial council with our new Council Chair
1 comments; last on Jan 20, 2012
SOPA - A Step in Destroying Democracy
Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:17 am // John Servais
NWCitizen.com went black for Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012, as a protest against proposed legislation, SOPA and PIPA. Here is what was posted.1 comments; last on Jan 19, 2012
Why SOPA is so terrible
Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 6:28 pm // John Servais
On Wednesday, thousands of websites will go dark to show opposition to SOPA. I will be posting a single article explaining who SOPA is so bad.0 comments
Planning Commissioner Mocks Environmental Concern For Coal Terminal
Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 11:06 pm // Wendy Harris
Planning Commissioner Onkels should recuse himself from review of environmental impacts at GPT.3 comments; last on Feb 08, 2012
Jack Petree, Olympia, the Whatcom Council and Obama’s Inner Circle
Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 8:04 am // Riley Sweeney
Latest from the Political Junkie on a variety of subjects
7 comments; last on Jan 15, 2012
Commmunity Governance at its Best
Mon, Jan 09, 2012, 8:27 pm // Tip Johnson
We have a new mayor!
4 comments; last on Jan 10, 2012
Property Rights Protected Under Lake Whatcom Stormwater Proposal
Sun, Jan 08, 2012, 11:02 pm // Wendy Harris
The County's proposed stormwater regulations for Lake Whatcom will increase development without improving water quality2 comments; last on Jan 20, 2012
Riley Rouses Row Over Domestic Violence
Sun, Jan 08, 2012, 1:21 am // John Servais
Issue is County Council member Kathy Kershner and how our social service programs are funded.3 comments; last on Jan 08, 2012
Some thoughts on the Occupy Bellingham issue
Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 12:05 am // John Servais
A third note on Jan 1 about the Herald photos with links. And previous thoughts on the trivia around the militarized evictions.9 comments; last on Jan 10, 2012
Kelli Linville has taken oath as mayor
Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:07 pm // John Servais
Kelli assumes office of mayor at midnight Dec 316 comments; last on Jan 02, 2012
Bellingham Herald removes comments
Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 11:59 am // Wendy Harris
Decide for yourself if this blog comment, posted under my own name, should have been flagged and removed from the Bellingham Herald Online Edition.1 comments; last on Dec 30, 2011
Herald Permits Censorship of Pro-Occupy Bellingham Comments
Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 11:14 am // Wendy Harris
Anyone can "flag" a blog posting, resulting in immediate removal of your comment, regardless of merit. This is occuring for comments supporting OB.1 comments; last on Dec 30, 2011
City Exceeds Scope of Occupy Bellingham Eviction
Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 8:26 pm // Wendy Harris
The City infringed on the public’s right to peaceful assembly in a public park by enforcing an inappropriate public safety law2 comments; last on Dec 30, 2011
Dan Pike Issues Order to Evict Occupy Bellingham
Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 11:55 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley questions Pike's timing, and Occupy's choice of tactics2 comments; last on Dec 28, 2011
Updates from The Political Junkie
Tue, Dec 20, 2011, 2:19 pm // Riley Sweeney
Where Riley provides more info on the City of Bellingham employees moonlighting issue and Crawford's ethical troubles
0 comments
Dock Increases Risk of Invasive Species on Lake Whatcom
Sun, Dec 18, 2011, 8:43 pm // Wendy Harris
Relocation of a dock to Bloedel Donovan Park underscores failure to protect Lake Whatcom from invasive species0 comments
Sam Crawford Faces Ethical Concerns . . . AGAIN
Thu, Dec 15, 2011, 12:44 pm // Riley Sweeney
Local blogger Shane Roth files ethical complaint over Crawford's sweetheart deals
3 comments; last on Dec 16, 2011
Planning Commission Fails to Remove Cherry Point From Birch Bay Mitigation Plan
Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 7:05 am // Wendy Harris
Claiming it is unfair to treat large property owners different than small property owners, the Commission refuses to remove industrial areas from buffer mitigation proposal.0 comments
Rick Perry, Can We Talk?
Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 9:58 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley has a conversation with Rick Perry
2 comments; last on Dec 16, 2011
For Gift Ideas, Think Beyond Parker Brothers
Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 9:32 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley discusses his love of board games and some good gift ideas
2 comments; last on Dec 11, 2011
The Political Junkie needs your input
Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 12:47 pm // Riley Sweeney
Please take my reader's survey, I'm planning 2012
0 comments
Loophole Benefits SSA and Undermines Birch Bay Mitigation Proposal
Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 7:00 am // Wendy Harris
Tell the Planning Commission to eliminate this loophole2 comments; last on Dec 14, 2011
Washington United for Marriage: It’s Time!
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 11:12 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley attends a public meeting on equality
0 comments
The Cole Train: Loads of BS
Sun, Dec 04, 2011, 4:53 pm // Tip Johnson
Wherein the sooty prospect of economic necessity rears its ugly head
2 comments; last on Dec 04, 2011
Update on Cherry Point Buffer Mitigation Proposal
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 1:08 pm // Wendy Harris
Planning Staff's recommended revision will not prevent SSA from reducing wetland buffers.0 comments
UPDATE: City’s response focused on favoritism, not lost revenue
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 5:51 pm // Riley Sweeney
More on the city employee moonlighting issue0 comments
TPJ Exclusive: Little Documented Oversight for City Employee Moonlighting
Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 4:29 pm // Riley Sweeney
The Political Junkie breaks a story of employee moonlighting within city of Bellingham
7 comments; last on Nov 30, 2011
Deer me!
Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 3:30 pm // Tip Johnson
O.K. Who's in charge of all these ungulates?14 comments; last on Dec 01, 2011
County Proposal Includes New Cherry Point Buffer Mitigation Requirements
Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 9:29 pm // Wendy Harris
The County's new mitigation proposal is unlikely to be adequate for Cherry Point's industrial impacts to habitat buffers3 comments; last on Nov 24, 2011
CameraGate: Red-light safety or city revenue?
Mon, Nov 21, 2011, 1:00 am // Guest writer
With budget woes, Bellingham passes on safety in favor of cash. Starting in 2008, Bellingham officials were coached by ATS on how to get Red Light cameras through…
26 comments; last on Nov 29, 2011
Cameras, not coal, decided the election
Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 8:24 pm // Paul de Armond
Looking at the numbers for the Bellingham elections
11 comments; last on Nov 22, 2011
Election Analysis: What does it take to win a county seat?
Fri, Nov 18, 2011, 12:28 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley examines Maginnis/Crawford and Kremen/Larson
0 comments
Election Analysis: Dropoff, Lynden Suburbs and the “Buys Bounce”
Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 5:20 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley looks at Lynden and coins some new phrases.
0 comments
Political Junkie Election Analysis: Louws/Ericksen
Wed, Nov 16, 2011, 12:31 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley takes a look at Louws/Ericksen in the search for moderate Republicans
1 comments; last on Nov 17, 2011
Kelli Linville is elected Mayor of Bellingham
Tue, Nov 15, 2011, 5:21 pm // John Servais
Results are posted as of 5:21 pm. Use links at top of right side column.2 comments; last on Nov 15, 2011
New links
Colbert Super PacCurrent Interest
Bham Camera ScamColbert Super Pac
Local Blogs & News
Bellingham HeraldBham Politics & Economics
Bhm Herald Politics Blog
Bob Sanders
Cascadia Weekly
Citizen Ted
Ferndale Record
Foothills Gazette
Get Whatcom Planning
HamsterTalk
KGMI
Latte Republic
Lynden Tribune
MikeatthePort
Northern Light
Northwest Review
Sweeney Politics
Twilight Zoning
Wally Wonders
Western Front - WWU
Whatcom Watch
Local causes
Bham Camera ScamBham CofC political blog
Chuckanut Mountains
Citizens of Bellingham
City Club of Bham
Community Wise Bellingham
Conservation NW
Cordata & Meridian
Futurewise - Whatcom
Jail - local mega plans
Lake Whatcom
N. Cascades Audubon
N. Sound Conservancy
Neighborhood Schools Coalition
No Leaky Buckets
NW Holocaust Center
RE Sources
Transition Whatcom
WA Conservation Voters
Publisher recommended
Americans Elect 2012Bham Politics & Economics
Community Wise Bellingham
Guardian Unlimited
Paul Krugman - economics
Redistricting WA state
Sweeney Politics
Watts Up With That? - climate
WikiLeaks.ch
NwCitizen 1995 to 2008
Early Northwest CitizenWeather & Climate
Cliff Mass Weather BlogClimate Audit
NW Radar
Two day forecast
Watts Up With That? - climate
Cascadia
Crosscut SeattleJoel Connelly
Orcinus
Portland Indy Media
Seattle Indy Media
Washington Votes
Leisure
Adventures NWEdge of Sports
Entertainment NNW
Famous Internet Skiers
Sailing Anarchy
Worth checking out
Al-Jazeera onlineAlaska Dispatch
AlterNet.org
Americans Elect 2012
Antiwar.com
Arab News
Asia Times
Atlantic, The
Buzz Flash
Common Dreams
counterpunch
Daily Beast, The
Daily Kos
Daily Mirror
Drudge Report
FiveThirtyEight
Foreign Policy in Focus
Guardian Unlimited
Gulf News
Haaretz
Huffington Post
Innocence Project, The
Intrnational Herald Tribune
James Fallows
Jerusalem Post
Juan Cole
Le Diplo
Media Matters
Middle East Times
MoveOn.org
Nation, The
New American Century
News Trust
NMFA
numbers
Online Journal
Palestine Daily
Palestine News
Paul Krugman - economics
Personal bio info
Politico
Progressive Review
Project Vote Smart
Reuters
Sea Shepherd
Slate
Talking Points Memo
The Onion
Tom Paine.com
truthout
War and Piece
WikiLeaks.ch
ynetnews.com
Governments
Auditor election pageBellingham
Bham - PFD
Candidate Filings
Election Results
Redistricting WA state
Skagit County
The White House
WA State Access
WA State Elections
WA State Legislature
Whatcom Auditor
Whatcom County
Other - for whatever
Ban Red Light CamsBushFlash.com
Chickehhawks
Coal quandary
Doonesbury
George Bush
Info Clearing House
Mainstreampolitics
Michael Moore
Nat Geo on Coal Trains
Reality News
The Crisis Papers
Third World Traveler
Unity08
Washington Outsiders
Less active
Bellingham RegisterCarl Weimer
Eye on Whatcom
John Watts
Post-Oklahoman Confessions
The American Telegraph
Quiet, offline or dead
David HackworthGitmo prisoner 345
Mega Awesome
Not in my county
Parkenfarker
Pro-Whatcom