Beaverton for the People Project

Mission: Transition from car centric to people centric city.

Goal: Disrupt traffic in Beaverton to pressure Mayor and City Council.  Demand city return streets to the people by implementing the Active Transportation Plan faster and completely. (Yes, Washington County and ODOT control Canyon Road changes, but city has influence.)

Objectives:

1. Beaverton declares a climate emergency
2. Beaverton creates Climate Advisory Committee
3. Beaverton increases implementation rate, at increasing locations and across the whole city the recommendations in the Active Transportation Plan.

Phase One

Measure North/South traffic light timing along Canyon Road.  Measure timing with and without triggering the pedestrian walk signal.  Don’t use East/West crosswalks.  Does triggering the walk signal cause a longer wait time for traffic?

Count, list and map the target intersections on Canyon Road between Cedar Hills Blvd and east to highway 217.  Recruit people to work at intersections.

Phase Two

Recruit and train people to work in shifts at walk signals on Canyon Road.

Schedule days and times when traffic disruption will occur.

Prepare banners and signs.

Create communications plan to notify TV Fire & Rescue, Police, City and Media.

Create social media plan for live broadcasting of events and recording of results.

Phase Three

Implement plans.

Place a person at each crosswalk on Canyon Road between cedar hills blvd and 217.

Have them go back and forth using the crosswalk lights.

Don’t use East/West crosswalks, only the North/South on Canyon and Farmington.

Phase Four

Escalation of Disruption

Disrupting over time and across space.  

Make the disruption scalable to include Farmington.

Green New Deal

Green New Deal Legislation

The specific term "Green New Deal" was first used by Pulitzer Prize-winner Thomas Friedman in January 2007.  Friedman wrote a column for the NYT.   Since then the GND was used by several politicians to describe making systemic changes.

A national Green New Deal was proposed in the 116th Congress as House Resolution 109, dated February 7, 2019.  While we know about the Climate Crisis and the GND idea, HR 109 was the most detailed plan yet presented to the American people to transform the economy.  Even so, HR109 remains vague, and more a set of principles and goals rather than policies with specific funding sources.

An Oregon Green New Deal was proposed by organizations lead by Oregon Just Transition Alliance (OJTA).  The Oregon GND was last update 1/23/19 and remains a work in progress.

The primary difference between the above two GND proposals deals with the phaseout of fossil fuel infrastructure in the Oregon GND proposal but not in the national GND.  Neither GND proposal has detailed funding sources specific for each goal.

A third GND proposal called "The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act" was proposed by Sen. Sanders and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez in November 2019.  The bill would address current Climate Crisis and the affordable house crisis.  The bill would create seven grant programs under one application process to modernize the US public housing infrastructure.

2019 Transportation and Energy

The decoupling of fossil fuels from economic growth, something not imaginable for most of the industrial era, began to happen in relative and absolute measures.  China, California and the UK sales of new ICE vehicles peaked in 2017-2018 and declines continue through 2019.  This lowers the demand for oil, and causes prices at the margin to decline.  No new investment in fossil fuel extraction will happen without demand increasing.  Decoupling also happens when inequality leads to people not being able to afford a new car so they live in an urban area and use public transit, bike and walk.

Vehicle sales continue to fall in almost every major market while GDP grows. This remains new territory for investors.  The real impact we expect includes new mobility models and generational shifts.  Implementing a GND would mainstream the mechanisms behind this trend and make GND goals achievable.

Consumers began in 2017 delaying new vehicle purchases until the acknowledged tech of the future meets their price/performance threshold.  This causes sales of new ICE vehicles to drop and sales slow for new EVs (continue to increase at a slower rate).

Any GND at the national or state level will reflect what has already happened in the economy.  All the goals of HR109 and Oregon’s GND began happening prior to legislation.

For example, linear growth of solar in a business-as-usual projection has been consistently falsified.  Solar energy will grow globally from 10 GW in 2010 to almost 120 GW in 2020.  That’s greater than 7.2 percent per year compound growth rate, without a GND.

Transportation and energy continue decoupling from fossil fuels faster and faster as the market price of electric transportation and renewables falls below fossil fuel alternatives.

Energy Efficiency

Given an abundance of electricity from renewable energy, why should we focus on energy efficiency?  During the transition to an electric economy, investments in energy efficiency reduce the demand for remaining fossil fuel generation.  The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act focuses resources on weatherizing, electrifying and modernizing our public housing to serve as a model of efficiency, sustainability and resiliency for the rest of America.

Conclusion

Having a grand strategy without specific details for funding and implementation sounds like someone describing a dream or fantasy world.  Expressing pessimism of the GND or cynicism about the future by reporting all the details of how things could go wrong, sound like someone saying they don’t expect anything will get better or they don’t want things to change.

Leadership requires holding two approaches in our mind at the same time.  We need a Grand Strategy based on principles and goals, and detailed policies with specific funding sources.  Linking and aligning these two approaches happens when leaders step forward to take action.

198 Non-Violent Methods

198 Non-Violent Methods

By Gene Sharp

https://www.aeinstein.org/nonviolentaction/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/

Under the category of "Methods of Social Noncooperation", boycotts ostracize people not complying with new social norms.  A selective social boycott leverages the overall mission and goals of Extinction Rebellion:

"We are facing ecological collapse due to the effects of climate change – and the fashion industry plays a big role in this. As part of Extinction Rebellion’s #XR52 weeks of direct action, we urge people to #BOYCOTTFASHION for a whole year, in order to disrupt business-as-usual and send a message to government, industry and public alike that enough is enough."

As an example, Greta Thunberg says she only buys what she needs.  Anyone noticing what she wears, knows that she walks her talk.

Sustainable Governance

Purpose

We do not easily envision a Sustainable World. What defines a Sustainable World that you would like to live in, that would satisfy your deepest dreams and longings?  Does that vision include a diversity of people without injustice or inequality?

Utilizing System Dynamics Methodology (level and flow language), this paper describes sustainable governance in order to improve our understanding and gain insight into the dynamics of a way to implement changes in global systems of government, economics and ecology.

Key Concepts

Population, resources and pollution are the primary accumulations (levels) to focus on, in order to understand growth.  Growth in population requires a surplus of resources.  As an increasing number of people demand a higher standard of living, this also requires productivity improvements in the use of resources.

As land, water and air are consumed or removed from the commons, there is less available for others.  As pollution is added to the land, water and atmosphere, the remaining common resources are not good enough for future generations to use.

The Lockean Proviso supports the privatization of the commons and must remain true for the continued justification of private property rights by individuals and corporations. The Lockean Proviso was devised as the criterion to determine what makes property acquisition just. When the Lockean Proviso is not true then private property acquisition is unjust to others.

Problem Statement

The Lockean Proviso is true when there is enough left in common for others and the quality is good enough so that others are not deprived of the use of the common resource. An unsustainable world is when the quality of the commons is depleted so that others are deprived of resources.

Criticism of Sustainable Development

Criticism of United Nations actions to encourage sustainable development reveal a traditional approach.  Conservatives and Republican politicians claim the UN has a plan to stealthily impose world-wide centralized control over people, attacking private property and energy usage.  Also, claiming the UN Agenda 21 (1) is “...a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control.”

In a review of Systems of Survival, Peter J. Boettke refers to words by Ludwig von Mises countering an argument put forth by Otto Bauer: "....rationalizing production is impossible. Without private ownership, economic planners will not be able to rationally calculate the best use of scarce capital resources." Again, referring to Mises: "...we have at our disposal only two ways to acquire resources—we can either voluntarily trade or we forcefully take."

Guardian versus Commercial Systems

There are two ways to make a living in the 21st Century. You either work for a Guardian or a Commercial organization. Lawyers are the only profession that can have their work involved in both systems.

Governments protect commerce, provide stability, administer justice, and enforce uniform standards. Commerce provides the economic engine and the ethical framework for trade, technological advance, and individual rights that combine to make governments worth living under. Yet these two ethical systems are mutually exclusive and cannot be rashly integrated without the risk of ethical confusion caused by a conflict of interest.

Without a proper Guardian infrastructure the Commercial system could be threatened. The laws enforced by the Guardian system to manage property rights benefit the Commercial system. But the Guardian also knows fundamental wealth includes natural resources, and supports the idea that social justice includes fair distribution.  Ample room for improvement exists if Guardians lay down the policies, remain serious about enforcing them, and keep their own hands off ways and means of complying.

The systems of interest are the two human systems (Guardian and Commercial) and their duties and obligations towards a Sustainable World and the Common Good, and the required positive contribution of their activities to this goal (as part of a renewed Social Contract).  A Sustainable World will only function within the symbiotic relationship of the Guardian and Commercial systems.

Goal

In a Sustainable World shall decreasing poverty remain the primary goal?  This graph (http://tinyurl.com/73jtkft) from the World Bank shows that extreme poverty has been decreasing over time since 1980. Over that same time period, except for Sub-Saharan Africa AIDs epidemic, life expectancy has continued to increase. So, a Sustainable World does not need a primary goal to decrease poverty.

In a Sustainable World, shall increasing profits and accumulating wealth remain the market’s primary goal?  The primary goal of the Commercial system includes them.  However a Sustainable World includes a balancing feedback loop that allows the Commercial system to function as intended and at the same time the Lockean Proviso remains true.

Shall a Sustainable World include centralized control, global political control or social engineering?  A Sustainable World does have consequences for private property and energy usage when the depletion of resources and pollution of the commons continue at current levels resulting in the Lockean Proviso not remaining true. For example, a tipping point happened when privatization of fossil fuels polluted land, water and air so that others were deprived of their use of clean land, clean water and clean air, resulting in the Lockean Proviso not being true.  Therefore the use of fossil fuels became unjust at that point in time.

Therefore, the goal of a Sustainable World is for the Lockean Proviso to always remain true in the symbiotic relationship between the Guardian and Commercial systems.

Reference Behavior Pattern

In System Dynamics, a Reference Behavior Pattern (RBP) is the observed or anticipated behavior of the real system. The RBP uses a qualitative diagram of the system consequences so that when a computer model graphs results from a simulation, the results can be compared to the RBP for validation and verification. Also, the RBP are the consequences of the system defined by the goal and so the RBP must be aligned with the goal of the system.

The RBP of a Sustainable World would show decreasing depletion of resources from the Commons and decreasing pollution of the Commons.

Boundaries

The whole earth is inside the boundaries of the Sustainable World including all the land, water and air. However, our system model is going to focus on the interaction between human organizations and the Commons.  First, the system model will be a general description to start with a model that works.  Then over time, the model will become more detailed, more focused and specific.

Diagram

At the highest level a diagram of the Sustainable World includes three systems: Guardian, Commercial and Commons. First the Guardian and Commercial systems are linked in a symbiotic relationship as described earlier.  Second, the Commercial system is linked to the Commons to privatize resources from the Commons and the Guardian system is linked to the Commons to protect resources by removing them from those available to be privatized.  For now, these are just lines connecting bubbles.  In a computer model the levels, flows and parameters will be separated out and linked together.

Waste from the Commercial system is returned to the Commons. The Guardian system uses laws, rules and regulations to control the privatization of resources from the Commons and the flow of wastes to the Commons.  Regulation of the resources and waste flows are marked with a red “R” in the diagram above.

This diagram represents accumulations and flows in an unclear way like a causal loop diagram.  The diagram is aligned with the goal of the Sustainable World by having the Guardian system regulate the flows to and from the Commons so that the Lockean Proviso is true.  However there are several problems.  First, wastes that go back to the Commons must keep the Commons good enough for others to use. Second, the diagram does not show the recycling flows of privatized resources and wastes within the Commercial system. Third, this is too high a level of diagram to convert into a computer model.  Finally, there is insufficient detail in order to create a policy that would not cause unintended results.

Here is the first draft of a Sustainable World Model of resources flowing between the Commons, private property and protected property developed using Insight Maker. 

Sustainable World Model

https://insightmaker.com/insight/1757/Sustainable-World

Bibliography

Building a System Dynamics Model Part 1: Conceptualization Retrieved August 23, 2018 https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-988-system-dynamics-self-study-fall-1998-spring-1999/readings/building.pdf

John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter V, paragraph 27.

Jacobs, Jane. Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics. New York: Random House, 1992.

Sustainable World Project Theory

US Constitution

The US Constitution provides no direct remedy for a President compromised by a hostile foreign power.  As a result, when confronted with evidence of that scenario, America had no choice other than to read this President into all of our nation's most closely held state secrets. Also, according to legal analysis by the DOJ, the President has legal immunity and may declassify information whenever the President chooses.

The impeachment powers in the US Constitution were designed based on the flawed assumption that when confronted with clear evidence of illegal acts by the President that Congress would take action.  Due to the US Constitution’s inability to anticipate the power of partisan calculation, America’s laws remain inadequate to guarantee action.  In the present case of Senate Republicans and House Democrats, both parties appear content to delay the rule of law for political expediency. 

Interpretation of the language in the First Amendment to the US Constitution by Congress and the Judicial System allowed too much money flowing to politicians.  The Citizens United decision resulted in a lack of transparency and the opportunity for corruption.

Ambiguous wording in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution serves as a shield for inaction on America's mass murder issue.

The separation of powers model, beautifully articulated by James Madison, functioned reasonably well to moderate and facilitate change for two centuries.  Now, the President makes changes in isolation while the legislative and judicial branches of government react too slowly to prevent harm to Americans and death to immigrants.

America faces, with this President, a clear and present danger to the rule of law and the US Constitution.  However, the only system America has to fix the problem remains the same broken system.  The contradiction states the problem.  The dilemma remains unresolved.

Our politics remains the same as always.  Our system of government does not meet the needs of all Americans in the face of an openly corrupt President and corrupt political party.

Beaverton Climate Action Plan

Visitor Comment Period at Beaverton Oregon city council meeting on July 9, 2019.

Comments by Richard Turnock on the "Preview of the Beaverton Climate Action Plan."

Link to 4 minute Video Clip on Google Drive

City Climate Policy

City Climate Policy

Passive versus Active Voice

The first sentence in the handout of proposed City Climate Action Plan uses the passive voice.  Passive verbs take attention away from the subject and take attention away from the specific action when that action might come across as hostile to someone.  When writing the Climate Policy, the City must not use the passive voice.

Passive: Climate change is recognized as one of the greatest environmental challenges of our time.

We get an active voice, by rewriting the sentence, making naming and making known the subject.  Also, substituting "emergency" for "change".

Active: The City recognizes the Climate Emergency as the greatest environmental challenge of our time.

Foxes and Hedgehogs

Hedgehogs focus on one grand strategy and do not waiver from their goal.  Foxes see all the details and what might go wrong in the future.  By experiencing a process that includes both and working to hold both in our minds, then over time and space the City successfully scales up actions and solutions.

The USA owns the label of the largest overall contributor to climate change thru about 2018.  However, when the USA completely eliminates carbon emissions, we barely effect the future course of the climate.  This means we need a different strategy. The City's Climate Action Plan must drive down the whole world’s emissions by setting an example and exporting our experience, technology and policy.

How can the USA and the City drive down the emissions of other countries? By making clean technologies irresistible to the entire world.  The City must set an example for cities in other countries, like Sister Cities.  Implementing clean technologies in the City drives down their cost and creates jobs in Oregon.  Then that success gets exported to other cities and countries.

By scaling up clean energy industries using subsidies, Germany lowered the price of solar and wind for everyone, worldwide, forever.  The City's Climate Action Plan needs a similar broad goal. 

The City's biggest impact happens by driving down the cost of technologies that reduce carbon emissions and making them the cheapest way to provide the energy, food, and transportation for people worldwide.

Evergreen Economic Plan

Evergreen Economic Plan
By Jay Inslee
May 2019

"Americans are already paying the price for climate change. Climate change cost the U.S. economy at least $240 billion per year during the past decade, and that figure is projected to rise to $360 billion per year in the coming 10 years. We cannot afford the cost of inaction."

"We can choose between two roads: guaranteed economic decline from extreme weather, or increasing prosperity from a clean energy economy and low-cost, electrified transportation. Transitioning to 100% clean vehicles, buildings and electricity will free Americans from the stranglehold of rising gas prices and provide permanent savings on heating their homes."


10 x $240B = $2,400B or $2.4 trillion total over past ten years. Might have been avoided by investing in 100% clean energy economy.
Future:
10 x $360B = $3.6 trillion total over future ten years avoided by investing in 100% clean energy future economy.

Conclusion 

Benefits of Evergreen Economic Plan included full employment, housing for everyone, clean air, clean water, and results of economic growth.

Costs of NOT investing outweigh the cost of investing and reaping the benefits of an Evergreen Economy.

Reference
https://www.jayinslee.com/issues/100clean/text/Inslee_100CleanPlan_2_1.pdf

Timeline of Collusion

Timeline of Collusion
Top Twelve Events
Reference: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1079514265902567426.html
"Proof of Collusion" Author Seth Abramson

2013 #9 
#9 THE 2013 MISS UNIVERSE PAGEANT.

November 2013. Moscow. Trump strikes a major tower deal with Kremlin agent Agalarov—with Putin's assistance. During the same 24-hour period, the Kremlin acquires kompromat on Trump at the Ritz. The Agalarov deal is active through February 2017.

2015 #8 

#8 TRUMP SIGNS SECOND SECRET DEAL WITH KREMLIN AGENTS. October 2015. Trump agrees to a Moscow deal partially negotiated via the Kremlin,
hiding it from both voters and execs at his company. His lawyer—once caught—lies about what Trump knew and how long he worked with the Kremlin.

#2

#2 THE RED SEA CONSPIRACY BEGINS.November/December 2015. A yacht in the Red Sea. Nader pitches to three Middle Eastern leaders —MBS, Saudi Arabia; MBZ, UAE; al-Sissi, Egypt—a plan to collude pre-election with a US pol (Trump) to create a pro-US, pro-Israel Muslim-nation alliance.

2016

#11

#11 THE TIHDC NATSEC MEETING. March 31, 2016.Trump International Hotel DC. Trump instructs his full National Security Advisory Committee to change the RNC platform in July to benefit the Kremlin. Trump learns here—at the latest— Papadopoulos is a Kremlin agent, and promotes him.

#5
#5 THE MAYFLOWER SPEECH. April 27, 2016. Mayflower Hotel, DC. Trump declares a historically pro-Russia foreign policy in a speech written/edited by Kremlin allies/agents and attended—in a protocol breach—by ambassador/spy Kislyak. Papadopoulos tells Mifsud the speech is a signal.

#7
#7 THE JUNE 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING.
Kremlin agent/Trump business partner Agalarov offers the Trumps illegal pre-election collusive assistance in the form of covertly—facially, illegally—acquired Clinton documents. Don Jr. accepts the offer and attends a meeting to get the docs.

#6

#6 THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION.
July 2016. Cleveland. Trump national security advisors meet with Russian ambassador/spy Kislyak and coordinate with Kremlin agent Kilimnick to change the RNC platform to benefit Putin, per Trump's orders. They then lie about this to voters.

#1
#1 THE "GRAND BARGAIN" IS STRUCK.

August 3, 2016. Trump Tower. Nader (Saudi Arabia, UAE) and Zamel (Israel, Russia) offer Trump representatives Prince and Trump Jr. illegal pre- election collusive aid in the form of money and a digital disinformation plan. Don accepts—Per the NYT.

#4

#4 TRUMP'S FIRST NATSEC BRIEFING.
August 17, 2016. NYC. Trump and Flynn get a classified NatSec briefing confirming Russia is engaged in a hot cyberwar against America. Both men keep offering Russia a unilateral end to sanctions afterward—thus aiding and abetting computer crimes.

#10
#10 FLYNN'S ILLEGAL NEGOTIATIONS.

December 2016. At the direction of the Presidential Transition Team's top brass, Flynn illegally negotiates with the Russians on sanctions and Israeli settlements. He later lies to the FBI about his illicit negotiations, and is indicted for that.

#12
#12 MBZ ILLEGALLY ENTERS AMERICA TO NEGOTIATE.
December 2016.
Trump Tower. Emirati Crown Prince MBZ covertly enters the U.S. to meet with Kushner, Bannon, Nader, Flynn, and possibly others as a 
follow-up to an #1 August 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
This leads to the #3 SEYCHELLES MEETING January 2017

2017

#3

#3 THE SEYCHELLES MEETING. January 2017. A hotel off the African coast. Nader sets a meeting between Prince (Trumps), MBZ (UAE), Dmitriev (Russia), and Dahlan (UAE, Saudi Arabia) to discuss a multi-nation bargain involving a nuclearized Middle East and ending sanctions on Russia.