A good half dozen or so people have been encouraging me to read Bill McKibben’s book “Deep Economy” and Griff and Tracy have been urging me to write a post now and then. So I guess this is at least two birds with one stone.
In case you haven’t read the book, I’ll give you my summary in a sentence. McKibben argues that our drive for never-ending growth is colliding with the physical limitations of our world and recommends that we switch our goal from “more” to “better”.
He starts with a historic overview. The major accelerator in our economic growth, and, I’ll note, the expansion of wealth, the sharing of political power, the increase of education, and the improvement in health, resulted from the invention of the steam engine. The simplify a virtually all encompasing change in paradigms, by converting a natural resource of fossilized energy, in this case coal, into power, human muscles could be replaced by mechanical machines.
This scientific breakthrough resulted in great gains in efficiency. Fewer people could do more work. The push for greater efficiency in everything began.
McKibben initially focuses, even obsesses, on the impact of shifting from human muscles to fossil fuels in the economic sector affectionately known as “food”. Most of you have long heard of some of the downsides of our current food production system, such as tomatoes with the consistency of baseballs, various food-borne disease outbreaks, and the destruction of the rain forest. The author instead focuses on an issue that is increasingly noticeable to us, a fossil fuel based, or dependent, system requires a substantial amount of energy. He notes that it takes a half gallon of oil to produce a bushel of midwestern corn.
The author advocates for increasing the consumption of locally-grown food. McKibben cites a Japanese study that found that eating local food would be the equivalent of cutting household energy use by 20 percent. He suggests that by disengaging from the global model of massive corporate farms and nurturing locally-scaled food systems would have other benefits. McKibben cites the most recent USDA Census of Agriculture which notes that “smaller farms produce far more food per acre, whether you measure in tons, calories, or dollars”. Finally, he raises recent studies that have found that switching from petrochemical-based agriculture to sustainable agriculture “has led to an average 93 percent increase in per hectacre food production”.
McKibben illustrates successful models of this shift. They’re not all in exotic locations like Japan, Cuba,and England either. One of them is in Burlington, Vermont. The Intervale Community Farm, next to the city’s power plant, and former site of the town dump, produces 7 to 8 percent of the fresh food consumed in Burlington, a city with a population of about 40,000 people, on just 200 acres of land.
The author argues that the financial feasiblity of fossil fuel-based agriculture may have peaked and is now being maintained by false economies, pointing out that “about 70 percent of the value of American soybeans comes straight from the government”. He notes a New York Times article that looked at Denison, Iowa, a town that was once known for the variety of fruit that it produced, but followed an economic development strategy that was linked to government subsidies and now produces only feed crops for livestock.
But enough about agriculture. Let’s get to a topic of greater interest, at least to me, density.
The next target of McKibben’s criticism is sprawl. Quoting James Howard Kunstler on the 1990s, “The dirty secret of the American economy was that it was no longer about anything except the creation of suburban sprawl and the furnishing, accessorizing, and financing of it”. He goes on to offer statistics from the U. S. Census Bureau: “the average density of cities, suburbs, and towns in 1920 was about 10 persons per acres’ by 1990, it had dropped to 4 persons per acre…and the average density of the most recent housing developments in America is only two people per acre”.
He goes on to illustrate the individual costs of a sprawling lifestyle. Reduction of quality time between parents and children, husband and wife, coaches and young atheletes, and volunteers and their communities, are all too common examples. McKibben, coupling it with what he calles hyper-individualism, expands it to the deterioration of our civic institutions, pointing to the decline of public schools, increase in our prison population, and collapse of our highways and bridges.
McKibben extends his solutions for our food sector to the overall economy. He sees hope in a “shift to economics that are more local in scale”. He finds the building blocks for the recreation of our economy, and social relationships, in the farmers’ market: “sociologists studying shopping behavior reported recently that consumers have ten times as many conversations at famers’ markets as they do at supermarkets”. He suggests a return from society to community, quoting neuroscientist Peter Whybrow, that as we move away from local toward global, “the behavioral contingencies essential to promoting social stability in a market-regulated society – close personal relationships, tightly-knit communities, local capital investments, and so on – are quickly eroded”.
This last bit was quite interesting to me. I had read the book, and written the notes, earlier this past summer. When I reread Whybrow’s quote, it seemed that he had been writing about Wall Street.
McKibben concludes this thread with a slogan that could be an empirical goal, “one-tenth the energy; ten times the conversation”.
The next sector is the media, in this case, radio. The spotlight shines on WDEV, an independent in Barre, Vermont. It’s a great story, but with local radio personality and entrepreneur Jeff Johnson taking over KYMN, we can check that one off our list. The next topic that caught my interest was “complimentary currency”. There’s Berk-shares, issued by three banks in Western Massachusetts. It struck me as another way to potentially increase liquidity, at least in the local economy.
It’s not just progressive idealists generating creative ideas for decentralizing the economy (and the currency), there’s real money involved. Even in a small state like Vermont, if local consumers “substituted local production for only 10 percent of the food we import, it would result in $376 million in new economic output, including $69 million in personal earnings from 3,616 new jobs”.
Back when I was studying developing economies as an undergrad, I believe that such a strategy would have been called “import-substitution” and was considered radical, even threatening, by some global powers. Taking back control of some of our agriculture, some of our media, and some of our capital investment, is it a radical idea?
Or is it no more threatening that what Wayne Eddy has been saying for years, “Keep Your Money in Northfield”?
David,
Rob’s point in #46 is accurate. In fact, it is your best interest to buy the book from me because it is better for our local economy and better for you. Better for our local economy because the profits stay in Northfield and I have the potential to expand and hire more employees. Better for you because I have a better price than Target or amazon.
Ross, you wrote,
”…quoting neuroscientist Peter Whybrow, that as we move away from local toward global, “the behavioral contingencies essential to promoting social stability in a market-regulated society -- close personal relationships, tightly-knit communities, local capital investments, and so on -- are quickly eroded”.’
There was a book published in the late 1970′s (and recently reissued) by Lewis Hyde:
“The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property.” Hyde is also the author (more recently) of “Trickster Makes This World.” By “erotic life of property,” Hyde doesn’t mean anything like the sexiness of land and goods; rather, he means the way gifts can help create bonds of community.
In “The Gift,” Hyde speaks of how some small-scale economies (on an island in the Pacific, etc.) are gift economies: There is no money used, and much of the life of the community and culture is built around networks of gift-giving at key life events: birth, death, coming of age, weddings. Instead of simply giving a gift to the bride and groom at a wedding, the occasion often requires intricate networks of gift exchange that not only bind together new ties in the families and community, but also, in the process, help keep people fed and warm.
Hyde draws upon the work of others before him who studied gift economies. He notes that when a culture gets too big, it can’t maintain the intricate webs of gift-giving--there are too many strangers to bind together in the community. Hence a market economy emerges, so you can take your money to the store and give it to the clerk without feeling you have some debt of gratitude toward the clerk (as you would if you were the recipient of a gift in a gift-culture).
Hyde’s main focus is how art exists in both types of cultures: In a gift economy, art keeps moving via the gifts that bind the community together. People would not think of hoarding a painting or sculpture simply because Aunt Millie or Grandpapa gave it to us; like stories in an oral culture that have to be told and kept moving to remain alive, gifts and art keep moving in a gift culture. Today’s seashell necklace might become tomorrow’s seashell earings, scattered among many. Not so in a commerce or market culture, where people are often encouraged to cling to their gifts, and where great art is kept safe, locked in a museum.
David L:
You say “it seems as if McKibben is promoting an individual approach. How this kind of thinking becomes a political reality is unclear (useless).”
I never thought your approach would be so similar to the cries of the labor movement: “ORGANIZE!”
But when consumers are told to help save the local economy by helping the profits stay local (among Chamber members), we have no guarantees from Chamber businesses that they, too, are spending the profits locally….
I’d bet that in liberal Northfield, many businesses who are Chamber members benefit greatly from the individual approach of liberal intellectual consumers who sometimes vote with their feet by buying local. I’d suggest you should not knock the individual approach. You might be biting the hand that feeds you.
Patrick: A true intellectual only has an affliation with the truth, not with liberals or conservatives. If an intellectual’s opinion has the appearances of liberal or conservative, it is just happenstance.
Rob: I don’t disagree with McKibbon’s premise. But, you can’t structure a political system around his premise. When Target was looking to come to Northfield, many said, “We don’t need a Target in Northfield”, “We would be better off with Target” etc. What folks really meant was, “I don’t want it, and I don’t want you to want it either”.
Further, even if McKibbon is right, selling the idea of shopping locally will only work if the individual is convinced of its merits for himself. There is no practical way to legislate it for the community. I don’t need a book to convince me of the merits of shopping locally or building community. Then again, Chamber members (and all business owners) have a vested interest in local businesses.
David,
That’s an odd semantic point to devote so much time to.
Assume, for example, that George Will is an intellectual. Is it really necessary to consistently describe him as “an intellectual whose opinion has the appearance of being conservative, but only due to happenstance”?
Would it be okay to say “conservative and intellectual”?
Wouldn’t it be far easier, as a shorthand to use in situations where it really wasn’t the core point of the discussion at hand, to simply describe him as a “conservative intellectual”?
I still don’t understand what this intellectual argument is even doing here. It sounds more like an argument between liberals and conservatives than a discussion of this book.
David,
I don’t think McKibben is making a political argument, but rather an economic one. I don’t remember him arguing for legislating the Targets of the world. He does not advocate legislating shopping locally, but offers an argument that it is a better economic model. If you look at the economic impact studies that I linked, it is better for our local economy and tax base if locally owned and operated businesses succeed. It’s pretty easy to understand. Shop at Walmart and the profits return to Arkansas and the shareholders, shop locally and the money remains in Northfield to recirculate.
I agree the individuals need to be convinced of the merits of local shopping for it to work. I’m not going to sit by and wait for it to happen on it’s own. I do everything I can to further the cause. Bottom line is I compete. I don’t expect people to shop at my store out of sympathy. I want them to shop there because it is a better choice in many ways. Better for their pocket book, better for our local economy.
To illustrate a point, I meet a lot of people looking for donations for their cause. I give them a donation whenever possible. Once I had some people asking for a donation. they commented that they had never been in my store. I asked them where they bought their books. They said Target. Did they asked Target for a donation? They said no, Target would never give them a donation. I then asked how they expected me to be able to give out donations if my potential customers shopped at Target. I pointed out I had many of the same books at equal or better prices. I could save them money. I would buy the books back. More money. They took the donation and said they would be back to shop. As far as I know they have never set foot in my store again.
Great comments Jerry. Both the Walmart and Target examples illustrate the point that McKibben was trying to make: keeping your money in Northfield strengthens our community.
Although I am a passionate advocate for shopping at local retailers, especially in this slow economy and during the upcoming holiday season, I was really hoping to generate other ideas for keeping our money in Northfield. There is certainly considerable power to the aggregated decisions of individuals, however, I was thinking about community-wide decisions.
Bruce Anderson’s comment on the $97 million spent by Northfielders on energy in 2006 seemed worth a follow-up. Perhaps someone from the Energy Task Force could let us know if the group made any specific recommendations for keeping some of those millions in Northfield.
Another suggestion made to me a number of times over the years is the City using more local architects and engineers for their consultant reports. Perhaps another benefit of making this switch would be resulting recommendations that provide greater stewardship of our scarce resources.
An idea that was raised during the furor over the lost municipal millions was to spread the City’s investment dollars around local institutions. Perhaps the fraction of a percentage point that we were supposed to earn by going with Rate Search would have created some local jobs.
So maybe we could take a break from Liberals and Conservatives, and the Chamber of Commerce and Erotic Poetry, and refocus the comments on possible decisions that we could make as a community that would keep our money in Northfield.
I’d like to see a meeting of local manufacturers--where businesses that make manufactured goods (you know, stuff that exists in three dimensions in the real world) could demonstrate their capabilities to each other. Businesses that purchase custom manufactured items would be invited, as well as anyone else interested.
Perhaps the EDA or Chamber of Commerce might see a meeting like this as fitting in with their missions. (David L., if the Chamber does this meeting, I promise I’ll join.)
Also Ross, in an earlier comment, you mentioned making an effort to source supplies locally and to sell to local customers. Actually two of my top four customers are local. But most of the raw materials I purchase (plastics and metals) are not available locally.
David L.: You wrote:
Perhaps the political system is, to a large extent, beside the point. During the last eight years, while many have complained about the Bush Administration’s political inaction on issues like global warming, Northfield has gained two wind turbines and a co-op that offers local and fair-trade foods; the colleges have been constructing LEED-certified buildings and have begun offering local foods in their dining halls; hybrid cars have begun to proliferate on our streets (along with some biodiesel cars); ARTech has installed solar panels; and countless individuals have begun to explore ways of living sustainably and locally. McKibben’s ideas may not contain a recipe for building a political system, but they may suggest some of the ingredients for sustaining a community.
If I buy a book at Monkey Read (sorry Jerry but you are in it now) for $10.00 and Jerry purchases that book from a supplier for $6.00 then six is leaving town and $4.00 is staying here. Then Jerry runs to the coop and spends the $4.00 profit on organic chips and water where $3.00 leaves town and one stays here … I don’t think that compounding effect would even be close to the MOM effect. If Northfield really wants to keep dollars in Northfield then either defining natural resources that can be harnessed (not wind) or promoting businesses with a big value added component are the best means.
BTW: I buy all my books from Jerry because the service is exceptional -- supporting local retail is important -- but the local retailers would benefit more from more MOMs than local sentimentality.
THANK YOU ROB
Go figure, we all made the described changes by you, without government help!!!!!
WOW what a concept.
This goes to the very heart of my stance on this. If there is a market for green technology and if it makes financial sense, the free market will find a way to do it.
..and we did…..
Target provides important entry level jobs to some of our children. Who then take the money and spend it locally.
In my mind Target qualifies as being part of a local economy.
I wish I could afford buying “Red Wing” shoes made in Minnesota for my three kids. In reality though I have to buy cheap shoes made in China….sorry.
Peter,
You wrote:
While I completely agree with Rob’s analysis of the positive local steps that have been taken locally in the past eight years in spite of the Bush Administration’s inaction/obstructionism/denial/etc. on issues like global warming, I disagree that “we made all the described changes…without government help.” WRONG. I have been right in the thick of trying to make most of these things happen, and there actually has been government “help” encouraging many of these things. The Carleton and St. Olaf wind turbines were possible only because of state incentives for community-based wind projects (created via bipartisan governmental action); there has been a federal tax credit for hybrid vehicles and a federal tax credit for biodiesel production; the state of Minnesota offers a solar rebate that ARTech took advantage of, etc., etc.
The “free” market is not free. Clean energy sources such as wind and solar compete with mature, polluting fossil fuel and nuclear industries that have received massive federal subsidies for many decades, and continue to receive them to this very day. I want to puke every time I hear someone say we should just let the free market work. Sure, markets are extremely important, but let’s not pretend they’re free, or there would be a level playing field if incentives/subsidies for renewable technologies were denied, or any similar nonsense. POLICY MATTERS, whether it’s at the federal, state or local level. We’d have way more than two wind turbines in Northfield, and millions more dollars circulating in the local economy annually, if there were a rational federal energy policy that encouraged local investment in 21st century clean energy infrastructure. That we have two turbines is a testament to the vision and tenacity of folks at Carleton and St. Olaf who made them happen IN SPITE OF federal policies making it virtually impossible to develop locally owned utility-scale wind projects, not to the wonders of the free market. Markets work great if you get the prices right. Unfortunately, the prices we pay for all sorts of socially and environmentally destructive activities/products/services do not include many of the true (external) costs…thus the need for government involvement.
Bruce said: “POLICY MATTERS”. Bruce is correct, and in order to further develop good … no exceptional… policy for NF’s further development, I will expect this new city council to work hard at doing just that.
It’s not nearly good enough to say “chicks rule”, I’m not looking for either chicks or roosters to rule; I’m looking for councilors who are not afraid to wade right in to the policy changing discussions.
I have not, in the thirteen years I’ve lived here, heard a better presentation than that of the Energy Task Force which they recently presented to the council. I am looking for the new council, no matter what part of the barnyard they hang out in, to bring some big golden eggs of discussion to the community.
The time is PAST… to be making new decisions, based on innovation and DEEP discussion.
This new council must PROVE itself to be different; especially after all the talk of a new day a’comin’. They said they could be better at working together; I want to see those new councilors put that promise to work, make it a reality.
Good luck ‘chicks’; you’ve still got three of those entrenched ‘roosters’ to work with, and it will only take one of you to go to that side of the ‘barnyard’ for the old voting bloc to start re-establishing itself.
The best beginning this new council could make is to bring back the Energy Task Force, give it some solid funding to co-ordinate all the appropriate ideas from the citizen Boards/Commissions … and start defining a new strategy to make this town thrive, in what are difficult times.
We need strong new thinking, ideas, and policies; just saying we have a lot of good new plans(Comp., Trans., etc) won’t cut it … You must use those plans as just the basis of your implementation of them.
I am all in favor to give tax breaks to companies that compete in a global market. Especially since other countries heavily subsidize some of their industry.
There is a difference between subsidizing something and people actually using it.
I feel we distort viable alternatives with non viable alternatives.
Too many interest groups have Washingtons ear, do we really want interest groups to determine our energy future?
Most politicians haven’t got the slightest clue on which source or combination of source has a future.
i.e. Once we start putting pencil and paper to solar and wind we find out that their applications are limited too.
We can’t completely dismiss free markets, but we shouldn’t rely on our government for all the answers either.
On another note:
I just read an article on a company called Hyperion Inc. they have developed a “backyard reactor” that would power 20000 homes.
here is the link:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
Bruce: What policies on the local level might be effective?
David,
I’ll comment on some energy-related policy suggestions that I feel make sense at the local level. While federal and state policy will be critically important drivers of significant energy system transformation, there ARE a lot of local policies that would make sense. I was a member of the Northfield Energy Task Force created by the City Council in May 2007. The Task Force was in existence for one year, and submitted a report (available on the City website: Energy Task Force Final Report) to the City Council in fulfillment of its charge, which follows:
. The report includes a number of policy suggestions. I’ve cut and pasted the following from pages 23-25 of the report:
This might be a good time to mention the workshop going TOMORROW (Wed.) -- a free Home Energy Efficiency Workshop.
The work of the energy task force has been very impressive, and I’d encourage everyone to read the report. In fact it should probably be have its own separate discussion thread. The Minnesota Sustainable Communities Network on the State of MN Website has a nice summary here.
Tracy -
…or the Town Meeting, sponsored by 1st National Bank, at the Grand, TONIGHT, at 6:30 p.m., regarding the economy…
- Ross
Thanks for the good information, Bruce — and the earlier editorial comments on “the free market isn’t free.” Combatting that myth will take a long time….
I served on the Northfield Energy Task Force and welcome the discussion of the report and the implications for our community. The Task Force has many ideas for local government as Bruce has indicated. In addition, I would like to cut and paste several ideas from pages 25 -- 27 of the report that the average individual resident and/or business owner can implement right now to enhance our energy security and local energy economy. While these may seem obvious and ordinary, the effects of conserving energy community-wide are enormous!
“The following are suggestions for residential users to increase their energy
conservation/efficiency and to consider clean energy projects for their homes.
Green
1. Buy compact fluorescent lamps to replace as many incandescent
bulbs as possible.
2. Walk, bike, or carpool at least one day per week; combine car trips when doing errands and shopping.
3. Unplug electronics when not in use.
4. Tune up your car. Change your air filter often. Recycle the filter if possible. Maintain recommended tire pressure.
5. Walk to the farmer’s market. Bring a reusable bag.
6. Turn your thermostat down as far as comfort will allow in the winter and up as far as comfort will allow in the summer to save energy.
7. Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle everything possible.
8. Use Xcel Energy’s SaverSwitch to lower air conditioning use (free).
Greener
1. Do all of the above.
2. Have a home energy audit conducted by Xcel Energy for $35.
3. Install a programmable thermostat and use it.
4. Plant a tree to shade your house during the summer to reduce need for air conditioning.
5. Use a clothesline to dry clothes.
6. Insulate (attic, walls, rim joist and foundation) and weatherstrip your home, seal up your home’s exterior cracks and openings for TV cables, phone lines, etc.
7. Update your windows to high energy efficiency if appropriate.
Greenest
1. Do all of the above.
2. Buy Windsource energy from Xcel Energy.
3. Have a home energy audit with infrared inspection for $100.
4. Install solar electricity or solar water heating.
5. Install air source or ground source heat pump to cool and heat your home.
6. Purchase Energy Star appliances including refrigerator, freezer, clothes washer, furnace, water heater, and dishwasher.
7. Install a wind turbine sized for your use if appropriate.
8. Future Green: Be prepared to act on future opportunities as
technology advances.
Suggestions for Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Energy Users
The following are suggestions for commercial, industrial, or institutional users
to increase their energy conservation/efficiency and to consider clean energy
projects for their buildings.
Green
1. Conduct a commercial energy audit through Xcel Energy.
2. Take advantage of Xcel’s energy efficiency and demand management incentives.
3. Provide incentives for employees to walk or bike to work.
4. Facilitate employee telecommuting, car and van-pooling.
Greener
1. Do all of the above.
2. Provide vans for employee van pooling.
3. Pay for parking for van pools and car pools.
4. Provide preferential parking for electrical scooters with electric plug ins.
5. Provide fuel efficient company vehicles.
6. Provide electrical plug-ins for plug-in vehicles.
Greenest
1. Do all of the above.
2. Generate energy with on site renewable energy systems such as photovoltaic, vertical wind turbines, solar thermal installations, and geothermal heat pump.
2. Partner with other major energy users to create a Special Energy District.
3. Install green roof on facilities.
4. Take a cradle-to-cradle approach in all processes [-- reduce, reuse, recycle, reform].
5. Future Green: Be prepared to act on future opportunities as technology advances.”
Access the report online on the city website under Energy Task Force.
Sorry that the question marks appeared at the beginning of each suggestion in my comment. Just ignore the ????. The leprechauns are playing with me again.
Thanks, Pat. I removed your leprechauns.
Curt -
I think your suggestion (in comment #57) of a Northfield Manufacturers Summit is a great idea.
An opportunity to network between manufacturers would be supportive and could be productive.
Involving the EDA would raise awareness and could help reduce obstacles and increase opportunities.
Perhaps catch EDA President Rick Estenson next time you see him and offer up the idea.
Thanks much,
Ross
Tangetally related article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=muse&sid=aPfPLyXncYss
Jerry, you mentioned the difficulty of having local people ask for donations when they don’t shop with you. I don’t know why downtown folks don’t come up with some cooperative plan for community support, much as Target has done. People could have a shopping card, and you could punch it anytime they shop downtown (or in your store). When the card is fully punched, the person can turn it in to their favorite organization, which can turn it in for a donation. No shopping, no money…
Think about how kids would nag their parents to come downtown for pizza or books or games, all to fill their cards…The groups would manage the cards, so there would be little cost to merchants.
I also think downtown could have print materials (brochures, coupons) that could be left at dental and medical offices and car service businesses, where people are sitting around and would notice them. There are a lot of simple ideas that could spark the interest of those 60 percent of local people who don’t shop downtown.
David Henson, I don’t understand why you see efforts to support local small businesses as somehow being in opposition to conventional economic development, i.e. recruiting “the next Malt-O-Meal”. It’s not either-or, it’s both-and.
I focus on our small indie businesses because I believe they contribute disproportionately to the “personality” of Northfield, particularly downtown, but get short shrift on any form of assistance. Because they are typically in retail, hospitality, or B2C services on a smaller scale, and don’t have many employees, they’re pretty much off the radar as far as support from the EDA, SBA, etc. goes.
I just think it’s smart and makes both social and economic sense to be neighborly, which includes buying things from people who are woven into the fabric of the community rather than people who aren’t, when I can make a meaningful choice. I also support conventional ec dev strategies of business retention and recruitment on a larger scale.
In my mind, having the attitude that “I don’t really care if Business X goes under” is only slightly less callous than “I don’t care if my neighbor goes into foreclosure and loses her house.” Of course, there are always businesses and neighbors that one doesn’t particularly care for (like the guy on my street with the pit bulls), but as an overall attitude of fostering community, I would hope those sentiments are limited.
o Clean energy surcharge on natural gas and the carbon-emitting portion of Xcel electricity (modeled on the Boulder Climate Action Plan tax10),
o Clean energy bonds (modeled on the Berkeley Sustainable Energy Finance District11), and
o Franchise fee on Xcel Energy bills.
——————————————————--
The above equals higher energy costs for everybody and makes no sense whatsoever.
happy to see that the task force members seem to have enough money to afford a higher energy bill.
Never mind that we sacrifice those who have a hard time affording their bills now so we can comply with a dubious Kyoto protocol…yup that makes sense.
People are struggling with higher food prices (created by the ethanol lobby group) so now we going to slam higher energy prices on top of it?
I say let’s remove ALL energy subsidizes and see who survives.
The task forces focus clearly has bias in the “green” movement and completely rules out nuclear and coal. I am sure you will attract a lot of people with that policy.
There is hope though 4 out 5 environmental policies failed on state ballads. Good news there is enough common sense left.
Peter,
In comment #64 you say:
I agree that we can’t rely on our government for all the answers. However, like it or not, the government does, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on one’s point of view (unless you are an anarchist), have a role to play in setting the rules of the economic game by which we play.
Judging by your link to http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/, which promotes its product, a 25 megawatt, underground, “backyard” nuclear reactor:
and your comment, “we distort viable alternatives with non viable alternatives,” it appears that you feel nuclear (specifically backyard nuclear reactors) is a viable option, while solar and wind are not. Where to start…
I have a hard time envisioning backyard nuclear reactors (even if the backyard is figurative, and not literally Peter Millin’s or Bruce Anderson’s backyard) playing a major role in a decentralized energy future for Northfield. While many, including some environmentalists, are urging a re-examination of nuclear power’s role in light of the seriousness of global climate change’s threat, it is far from clear that nuclear would be more economically and technically viable than wind or solar even in a totally unregulated market.
Setting aside, for brevity’s sake, the not-insignificant questions of operational safety (I liked Hyperion’s reference to the backyard security detail!), long-term (as in thousands of years) waste management, and nuclear proliferation issues, there is the question of GOVERNMENTAL SUBSIDY. The nuclear industry has been heavily subsidized in many, many ways since well before day one (basic and applied R & D, military reactor design, etc., etc.). If you are unaware of the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, the history of this little-known piece of federal legislation is a good example of how energy industry insiders pull strings in near-private in Washington, while arguing in public that their industry (nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas) is the most competitive, cost-effective, blah, blah, blah. Concerning Price-Anderson:
It was argued that this “temporary” measure was necessary to get the nuclear industry up and running because the private insurance industry was unwilling to cover possible large claims (as in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of claims) resulting from possible large nuclear incidents. Well, after 51 years of experience, guess what? The private insurance industry is still, apparently, unable to provide affordable coverage to the nuclear industry, leaving you and I, gentle reader, on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in the event of any major accident. Can’t happen, you say? Why won’t private insurance provide adequate, affordable insurance, then? How large has this subsidy been for the nuclear industry over the past 51 years? I don’t think I have enough fingers and toes to count that high.
As for wind and solar being (if I’m reading you right, Peter) non-viable, or at the very least “we find out that their applications are limited too”: Minnesota has already committed, with overwhelming bipartisan support (59-5 vote in the state Senate; 125-9 vote in the House) for The Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, to having a total of 25% of the state’s electricity come from renewable energy sources (i.e. wind, solar, etc.) by 2025. Xcel Energy, our utility, has to provide 30% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Already, in one of your home countries, Germany, “in the northern states of Saxony-Anhalt, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, and Schleswig-Holstein, wind meets an impressive 30 percent of electricity needs.”
For purposes of this discussion thread, I think the central energy question is not which technologies are viable (although that is indeed important), but
I’ve probably gased on long enough for now.
Tracy -- personally I agree with what you are saying -- accepting the idea of keeping the money in Northfield seems tough given the currency is US. But as a practical matter (like from a marketing position) saying buy local because it is more neighborly or moral does not work -- therefore Walmart is what it is. As far as local retailers I think energy spent promoting the tangible value to the individual consumer (for which there are many) of shopping locally will be more successful.
The keeping everything local concept did not work that great in the middle ages. I guess for Northfield economic development I would not focus too much inwardly.
For example, I buy Nicks eggs at the coop -- they are local (I’m not actually sure which town) -- but they are also great eggs which is really why I buy them. Now this is a local resource -- a business could be made expanding this or franchising the concept to get these great eggs available elsewhere. I mean how will Chatfield and Edina get these great eggs if all vision is turned inward ?
That said the coolest example of turning everthing in ward is Ithica Dollars http://www.ithacahours.org/
Peter, I wrote comment 79 before seeing your comment 78 (Griff tells me I clogged up the filter with my excessive gas). I’ll respond (briefly, I promise! I have to get back to work!) to a couple of your concerns here.
Either a clean energy surcharge or a franchise fee would indeed mean (at least temporarily) a higher energy bill for SOME. (We discussed at length, as a task force, mechanisms to ensure that lower income residents would be held harmless.) In addition, we discussed a variety of ways to ensure that those paying the tax (yes TAX) in the form of items one and three in the list would directly benefit from the tax (low-interest loans, rebates, educational programs, etc.). Item two, the clean energy bond, would involve essentially no cost to the taxpayer (other than the transaction cost to the city of issuing the bonds that would finance the initiative). Individuals and businesses would pay off these bonds through the property assessments associated with the energy improvement to the property.
Corn ethanol I don’t even want to begin with. I’ll just say that, while corn ethanol initially served a purpose in demonstrating that biofuels can work, its time as a demonstration/bridge technology has come and gone, and it makes no sense to make fuel from food in significant quantities. High food prices are also far more complicated than simply blaming corn ethanol.
As for saying “let’s remove ALL energy subsidizes and see who survives” I can only say, Peter, I try to live in the real world. Removing ALL energy subidies ain’t gonna happen. Even if we could do that, does it make sense to say, “let’s have clean, non-polluting renewable energy sources that do not cause asthma and other respiratory problems, that do not require mountaintop removal, that do not lead to mining deaths and black lung for thousands of miners, that do not require environmentally risky drilling in offshore and pristine wilderness environments, that do not have the potential to lead to briefcase nuclear bombs or dirty bombs, that do not contribute to potentially catastrophic global climate change, etc., etc., compete on a so-called level playing field with coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear industries that DO all of those things and more, when these industries have been heavily subsidized for many decades already, and we pay no price in the market for all of the tremendous costs of these traditional energy resources?
To pretend that “the free market” can solve our energy problems if only we would remove all subsidies is delusional. I for one don’t buy for one second that we can pretend that an unsubsidized, level playing field can be created in the energy sector. IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN. NO WAY, NO HOW.
I don’t completely rule out nuclear and coal. Neither nuclear nor “clean” coal seem like very plausible local clean energy solutions, however. Would you like a nuclear power plant and/or coal-fired power plant in your backyard, Peter? I have my doubts that a majority of the Northfield-area population does. Fortunately, the majority has spoken, not only locally, but nationwide in the recent election, and,. yes, one of the MAJOR policy differences between Obama and McCain was energy. (There was a previous thread that touched on this, nuclear in particular. I don’t have the time to track it down…)
Bruce,
Despite your insurances energy will cost more from renewables.
I do believe that we should explore and bring renewable energy in to the mix. What worries me is the all or nothing approach of some promoting it.
10 years from being independent from oil is foolish and dangerous. I’d rather see a more inclusive approach.
We need to avoid more foolish corn ethanol like stunts. Not only is corn ethanol not efficient but it also brings the moral issue of burning food when other people starve.
Wind, solar or corn alone can’t free us from oil. It has to be a comprehensive, systematic and logical approach preferably free from partisan politics.
I think most common sense people see the need to get away from oil only we just have disagreements on how and how fast we should get there.
Unfortunately you have oil lobby pushing on one side and the green extremist lobby on the other.
Fortunately, like so may other times, the solution is somewhere in the middle.
I have not been very enthusiastic about the 530 Ac. annexation, except for some possibilities OTHER than what has been talked about for ‘industrial’ development on that land.
Michael Pollan(famous gardening,food and nutrition writer) had a long “Letter to the President-Elect” in the New York Times a few Sundays ago. He suggests a sustainable agriculture/food chef for the White House, and the creation of a five acre garden on the south lawn, which would provide produce for the White House, setting an example of dedication to better agricultural and nutrition practices .. to say nothing of growing and eating locally!
This thinking is something I would like to see for the 530 Acres in G’Vale. Not only could that annexation anchor a portion of the Greenway Corridor Plan (Something that I fear won’t happen without an initiating ‘anchor’) but it could set Northfield up as an example for sustainable, local agriculture.
Okay, there’s the weather in MN, but there is such rapid growth in the hydroponic growth industry … does the solution lie there?
Look at the example of the hydroponic greens business in Faribault; anyone who shops at Just Food has probably enjoyed their beautiful lettuces. Why can’t a very financially successful model for that acreage be a huge system of hydroponic growing facilities (are they still called greenhouses?) which would provide locally grown food all year around, as well as some interesting jobs.
Maybe that’s a partnering ‘thing’ with Saint Olaf, as they are about the most sustainable people around, and they’ve been putting out lots of students with strong interests in that arena.
We need a new model of capitalism: one that doesn’t depend on just exponentially developing more product, but a model of capitalism that depends , and REWARDS, the development of innovative ideas that are proportionate to the lives we must begin to live, in earnest, not just in theory.
Hydroponics may be more expensive now; but will regulate down in the same way electronics have as they became more common.
People will always need to eat. I think it is the best business investment around, and especially at a time when there’s an economic downturn.
As a taxpayer, that’s a plan I could get behind, feel good about, think was a sound investment for Northfield.
Forget “build it and they will come” … Build it and they will eat!
For anyone interested in reading the book, I have more copies in stock, 20% off, same price as amazon.com, no shipping:
my price:
http://tinyurl.com/6q8bvy
amazon:
http://tinyurl.com/68o8t8
an economic, not moral reason to buy the book locally.
Thanks, Jerry!
Kiffi -- here’s the link for the Michael Pollan article -- an excellent read.
Not sure where to put this but this is important.
Most of you remember the outcry when the bridge collapsed and how it was due to negligence of the infrastructure….turns out that was another attempt to smear the people in power.
——————————————————--
Federal investigators probing the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis said today that the Aug. 1, 2007, tragedy was the result of design errors and not aging infrastructure.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/34404129.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs
Peter is right…we cannot develop renewable energy without keeping our eye on conventional energy production. I was glad to hear so much talk about energy in the recent Presidential election, and I’m sure progress will be made in that area.
We have only to look to Faribault to see how renewable energy can help an economy. The new wind turbine assembly plant should be up and running in late 2009, employing 100 people right away. Great to have that business here. But it is interesting to note that Faribault managed to lure it there because it had land in the JOBZ program. Without that, I doubt it would be in Faribault. My question is that if JOBZ can make this plant happen, what would happen if other incentives were put on the table?
Ray -
You’re right to bring up the “other incentives” required to secure the next Moventus. The article to which, I think, Curt Benson provided a link, informed us that the public sector (city, county and state) had to provide over half of the money ($4.3 million out of a $8 million budget) for the project.
If the company indeed creates the 100 jobs predicted (I couldn’t find the link in a quick search of the comments to determine the actual number of jobs), that would be $43,000 of taxpayer money per job created. I’m not sure if that is this is considered by the “experts” to be a cheap or an expensive cost for public money per job created.
However, when such an investment is coupled with the JOBZ program, I do have a concern. My understanding of that particular program is that it provides exemptions for individual, business, sales, and property taxes for some time period; this would certainly have a major impact on the return on public investment for such a deal.
Although 100 jobs sound really great, and assembling windmills sounds really green, and coming up with a justification for the major public infrastructure investment that isn’t even part of the project cost is really convenient, I guess I would look first at trying to set up a local “environment” that can repeatedly create 3 or 6 or 9 jobs, many times a year, with little or no public investment, but perhaps with more flexible and creative code enforcement, program application, and promotional collaboration.
Such an approach would be higher on my list than hoping and dreaming, or planning and scheming, for the next Moventus, Saturn, or Excelsior plant. Perhaps I’m unrealistic, but I’d like to think we can get more leverage out of taxpayers’ money than 86 cents on the dollar.
- Ross
Not only do we subsidize the jobs with taxpayer money to build the wind turbine, we also subsidize the produced electricity from it? To end up with a higher KW per hour cost?
Doesn’t sound that good of a deal to me.
I would be curious to know on how much actual electricity we get from the two turbines in Northfield?
Somebody told me that we don’t get any and the power produced only supplies part of the campus?
Peter,
Northfield does not get any power from the two turbines because Northfield does not own them. the two Colleges own them and each supplies about 30% of their power. this is my understanding of how they are set up. Carleton sells their power to excel and gets a credit for the amount produced and St. Olaf has their own power grid so when it spins, it turns on the lights.
Peter,
Jerry’s description of the two turbines, in terms of ownership and power production, is correct. The two turbines, combined, produce the equivalent of about 4% of Northfield’s electricity, with no pollution (carbon dioxide or otherwise) resulting. My only complaint is that there aren’t many more locally-owned turbines on local ridge tops. The reason there isn’t is that the game is rigged against local ownership. (For an excellent discussion of this, see Broadening Wind Energy Ownership by Changing Federal Incentives by John Farrell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.)
All of the Carleton turbine’s electricity is sold to Xcel Energy (and any surplus power produced by the St. Olaf turbine) at a competitive contractual rate, ensuring that Xcel will pay 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour from September 2004 until September 2024 for all of this electricity. Do you think any new nuclear power plants, backyard or otherwise, would be able to produce power at this rate? Or any new “clean” coal plants?
As an Xcel ratepayer, I think it is a wise corporate decision by Xcel to lock in such an attractive rate for 20 years. New wind power projects are cost-competitive with new coal-fired power plants, and cheaper than new natural gas plants, even at current fuel prices. I daresay natural gas (and coal, when you consider the cost of transporting it from the mine mouth in Wyoming via diesel freight train), including the inevitable price we will soon begin paying (whether because of a carbon cap-and-trade system, or because of a carbon tax) will be more than a bit more expensive in 2024 than they are now. I produce most of my own power with a photovoltaic system, but the small (net) amount of power I purchase from Xcel, I get through their Windsource program, which supports Minnesota wind farms. For the first half of 2008, customers purchasing Windsource paid an average of 0.71 cents per kWh more for their electricity, or an average of about 7% for a residential customer. In July, for the first time, Windsource electricity was actually CHEAPER than “regular” electricity, since the fuel adjustment charge (reflecting the cost of purchased fuel) was larger for “regular” customers than the charge for Windsource.
As for the subsidies of wind (which are primarily in the form of a tax credit which only large corporations and individual fat cat investors can take advantage of, not regular folks--see the ILSR analysis cited above--surprise, surprise), I will remind you that, as I tried to make clear in comment #81, it is simply NOT TRUE that wind, solar and other renewables get subsidies while the traditional, polluting fuel sources do not. I went into the Price-Anderson Act in some detail in comment #81, just one of the many subsidies the nuclear industry has been getting (in this case for 51 years annd counting).
Since you seem completely unwilling to take my leftist word for it, I suggest you check with a more authoritative source, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which produced an October, 2007 report (FEDERAL ELECTRICITY SUBSIDIES: Information on Research Funding, Tax Expenditures, and Other Activities That Support Electricity Production) with the following (excerpted) findings concerning research and development:
Concerning “revenue loss estimates associated with tax expenditures specifically related to electricity,” the GAO found the following:
In summary, then, one can conclude that fossil fuels received $16.8 billion in DIRECT electricity-related subsidies; nuclear received $6.2 billion, and renewables received $4.2 billion. For the record.
In addition, there are HUGE human health and loss of productivity costs related to air pollution resulting from coal plant operations (estimated in the billions of dollars annually, not to mention human suffering and death). Another little-known subsidy: many coal mining companies have reneged on their responsibilities to their employees. Literally hundreds of thousands of former coal miners are permanently disabled, or have been killed by, pneumoconiosis, better known as black lung, which results from long-term exposure to coal dust in and around mines. It’s a problem to this very day. As a result, the federal government has been operating a tidy little program called the Black Lung Benefits Program since 1969. The cost to taxpayers: $1.324 billion in FY 2009.
I could go on and on, but I don’t really think I need to, Peter. The bottom line: we, the consumers, don’t pay the full bottom line when we pay our utility bill (or fill up our gas tank). Yes, renewables receive subsidies. However, the nuclear and fossil fuel industries receive MUCH MORE, and pollute, sicken and kill people to boot, not to mention causing potentially catastrophic global warming in the case of fossil fuels.
Getting back to the original focus of this discussion thread: locally-owned renewables (and energy efficiency/conservation) offer a huge potential local economic benefit. Backyard nuclear reactors notwithstanding, nuclear and fossil fuel technologies do not.
(Thread drift warning) Regarding inexpensive power from conventional coal power plants:
EPA ruling over climate jeopardizes coal plants
Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:11pm EST
By Timothy Gardner NEW YORK (Reuters) -- U.S. environment regulators late Thursday rejected a permit for a new coal-fired power plant in Utah over the issue of its greenhouse gas pollution, putting in question the future of new coal plants that do not to curb their emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency’s appeals panel rejected the permit issued by its Denver office, saying it had failed to support a decision to grant the plant a permit without requiring the best available controls to limit carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for warming the planet. (more…)
Thanks, Kiffi and Tracy, for the Michael Pollan plug. If you Google Michael Pollan NPR garden white house, you will find a link to his recent interview by Teri Gross of Fresh Air, which discussed the letter to the next president regarding ag policy and gardening on the White House lawn.
Thanks, Bruce, for talking up the idea of more decentralized energy generation. It seems we’re too often stuck in the paradigm where large corporate interests generate the electricity and sell all of it to the consumer, so when we start thinking about wind turbines and solar-electric generation, most people talk about wind farms on farm land, and solar arays in Arizona.
The US has quite a bit of prospective space for collecting rays from rooftops if we would retrofit many of them.
In spite of claims of bird kill — mostly from putting turbines in migration routes, or from older ladder-style towers on which birds liked to roost — I think many homes could generate at least some electricity from wind, if only zoning would allow it. If there were a market, safe home-based towers could be designed.
These would all be ways to keep energy dollars local.
I’ve heard from one homeowner who had solar on the roof (anecdotal evidence -- not to be trusted?) that Exel charges a fee for the box that helps sell the electricity back to the power company — so it became more expensive for him to generate and sell it back to Exel than to go without the solar panels altogether. If this is actually the case and not just an error in calculation on the part of the homeowner, I’d like to see the laws changed so there is no disincentive.
Bruce- While the thread is adrift, I did some quick math on the windmills. I come up with a need of about 50 windmills to supply enough electricity for Northfield. There is a link- http://www.energyadvocate.com/fw84.htm, with some interesting statistics. These are some old figures, so there may be more efficient techonology available now than when this was written. At that time, 2001, the study figured about 60 windmills over about 1500 acres, or about 3 sq. miles. That is a lot of wildmills close at hand, and with costs over $1+ million each, and a return of about $.033 per kilowatt, it would appear to take quite a few years to pay these things off. Plus, the needed infrastructure for distribution and rent/cost of the land, I wonder if these things would even be able to pay themselves off before they wore out? Carlton has already had to replace the gearbox on theirs, but I think it was covered under warranty. It’s a little late and I’m a little tired to do the math tonight. Re.: the article, it appears the writer is biased toward solar power.
The Northfield Energy Task Force spent considerable time researching and discussing various biomass-based technologies. Its final report included recommendations concerning combined heat and power plants such as the Rahr Malting plant in Shakopee discussed in today’s Strib: Ear-blasting start promises quiet energy payoff.
A plant the size of the $60 million Koda Energy plant (27 megawattss), with 90% availability (i.e. producing full power 90% of the hours per year, a fairly reasonable expectation), would generate 82.5% of the electricity consumed in Northfield in 2006. Add the two college wind turbines, and Northfield would be about 7/8 of the way to providing all of its electricity from local renewable resources…
To be sure I am not against any form of alternative energy. I am however opposed to making a wholesale change overnight.
Most people just can’t afford the cost of these ventures…period.
Why does this have to be an either or choice???
I could really see how 50 windmills would add a certain romantic view on to Northfield.
This would look great. Who on this site would like to volunteer to put on in their backyard.
T Boone Pickens was on “Meet the Depressed” last Sunday. Out of all the current proposals his makes the most sense.
He as a common sense approach and is only guided by his desire to make money on his fund that is vested in the wind project.
I’d rather support him, buy shares in his fund then to throw it away to another failed government program.
http://noteviljustwrong.com/
Finally……..
Burlington, Vermont, (as McKibben tells us) has the Intervale Community Farm CSA. It has a Living Machine (biological wastewater treatment plant). It has a strong gay community. It provides a base of support for a socialist Congressman (Bernie Sanders) and a liberal Democratic Senator (Patrick Leahy). The result of all this subversive activity? Burlington, Vermont, is (according to the CDC), the HEALTHIEST CITY IN AMERICA. Damn those clean-living liberals!
Rob,
You forgot to mention, that Vermont has:
Vermont’s State/Local Tax Burden Among Nation’s Highest
During the past three decades, Vermont’s state and local tax burden has consistently ranked among the nation’s highest. Estimated at 10.3% of income, Vermont’s state and local taxes rank 8th highest nationally, above the national average of 9.7%. Vermont taxpayers pay $4,410 per capita in state and local taxes.
Vermont’s 2008 Business Tax Climate Ranks 44th
Vermont ranks 44th in the Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index. The Index compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes; individual income taxes; sales taxes; unemployment insurance taxes; and taxes on property, including residential and commercial property. Ranks of neighboring states are as follows: New Hampshire (7th), New York (48th) and Massachusetts (34th).
Vermont’s Individual Income Tax System
Vermont’s income tax system is composed of five brackets with a top rate of 9.5% kicking in at $349,700. Among states levying individual income taxes, Vermont’s top rate ranks 2nd highest nationally. Vermont’s 2005 individual income tax collections were $804 per person, which ranked 20th highest nationally.
Vermont’s Corporate Income Tax System
Vermont’s corporate tax system has three brackets and a top rate of 8.5% on income over $25,000. This top rate ranks 13th highest nationally. In 2006, state-level corporate tax collections (excluding local taxes) were $137.97 per capita, which ranked 27th highest nationally.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/62.html
I really think we should follow their example. We won’t have any jobs, but we be a lot healthier.
Peter,
Ross began this thread with his analysis of Bill McKibben’s book, Deep Economy (which is subtitled “The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future”). In Ross’ second paragraph, he provided this one-sentence summary of the book’s central thesis:
This thread, in general, is addressing the issue of whether and how we might create a “better” Northfield in light of the issues discussed in McKibben’s book. Rob, in comment #98, touts Burlington, Vermont’s status as America’s healthiest city. Your response (in comment #99), implies that the only thing that matters to you is how much you pay in taxes. Isn’t “better,” perhaps described as improved quality of life, a bit more nuanced than paying lower taxes? After your litany of high tax statistics, you indicate that Vermont’s relatively high taxes must mean that if we “follow their example…we won’t have any jobs.” In fact, Vermont’s unemployment rate (5.2% in September, 2008) is lower than Minnesota’s (5.9% in September, 2008). Go figure.
I think a far more interesting question than “who pays more (or less) taxes?” is “who has a higher quality of life?” I would also add, whose grandchildren will have a higher quality of life (i.e. how sustainable is the community/state/nation’s quality of life)?
I just spent a few minutes poking around with the Google machine, and was unable to find any comprehensive, relatively objective quality of life analyses for US cities or states. However, I found an interesting international analysis by the relatively staid British journal The Economist. The Economist published The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index “based on a unique methodology that links the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys to the objective determinants of quality of life across countries. The index has been calculated for 111 countries for 2005. This note explains the methodology and gives the complete country ranking.” While there are other such indices that you, Peter, might find too lefty-fringy-hippie-dippie (alternatives to the brute force Gross Domestic Product, such as the Index of Social Economic Welfare and the Genuine Progress Indicator), The Economist can hardly be accused of being a leftist rag. Their QOL index places Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Luxembourg and Sweden in the top five slots; the US is a respectable number 13 (in spite of our robust 2nd ranking in GDP per capita, trailing only Luxembourg). Bringing up the rear are Tajikistan, Nigeria, Tanzania, Haiti and Zimbabwe.
I have to believe that the high QOL for the top performers has less to do with relative tax rates than a whole bunch of other far more interesting policy and social issues, as does the low QOL for the worst performers. Of course we have to be concerned about excessively high taxes stifling job creation. However, I just think there are lots of other much more important issues if we can break out of the “no new taxes”/”lower taxes are everywhere and always an imperative” mindset.