What Does It Take to Open Schools?

The Sunday Seattle Times “Back to School” article goes into considerable detail about the pandemic’s effect on education.   The lesson from the spring closure was:

“U.S public school students learned less than half of the math and just under 70 percent of the language arts skills they would have learned if schools had remained open last spring”

The articles proposal “Avoiding a repeat of spring” details some attempts to improve education this fall with little assurance of success.  It identified the “decision-makers”, Gov. Inslee, Local health departments, and School Districts, but didn’t provide any information as to what was required before schools can be open for “in-person” learning. 

Health officials had earlier concluded they needed to keep schools closed in counties classified as “high risk” if they exceed 75 cases per 100,000 residents. That “high-risk” status is likely to continue for as long as they continue testing 15-20,000 daily. 

Heath officials are no longer willing to tell how many are even being tested so it’s unclear what percentage are testing positive. However, it’s “unlikely” the state will ever achieve the “Washington state goal 2% positive over 2 weeks” for those willing to go through the hassle of testing. 

Those making the decision should consider the Aug 15, 14 day average positives, 663, only resulted in forty 14-day average hospitalizations or 6%.   Those over 80 had 5% of the cases but 51% of the fatalities with 27% mortality.  Those 60-79 had 14% of cases and 38% of fatalities and 7% mortality.  Those 20-59 had 10% of cases and 0.43% mortality.  Those under 20 had 13% of cases with no fatalities.  The "real" mortality rates were significantly lower since many with the virus were asymptomatic or didn't get tested.  Also, some of those older who died, and the 11%, 20-59, fatalities presumably had other contributing factors.  

Keeping schools closed deprives the children in 29.7% of Washington households all the benefits of a classroom education and their parent’s ability to work.  Health officials need to provide realistic guidelines that balance the safety concerns against the benefits.  It should go beyond counties to informing individual school districts how many in their district tested positive to how many were hospitalized, what the ages were for those who died and if they had any contributing factors.  Again do it by district, not by county.

Inform the school district, parents, and teachers. Let districts decide to have in-person classes for parents and teachers for those who want it and remote for those who don't.  Unless they do schools could be closed for a long time. . 

Seattle Times Self-inflicted Wound

The Seattle Time Aug 13^th edition continues their recent attempts to justify a Free Press Subsidy.  Action is needed because:

“This system is in peril of imminent collapse, which would exacerbate the current civil discord across the country and jeopardize democracy and freedom as we know them.”

It’s unclear why the Free Press Subsidy is needed to prevent an imminent collapse of the system.   One could reasonably argue it’s the media and the Times that have spent the last three years “exacerbating the current civil discord”.   Whatever actions took place prior to Trump’s election would have never been an issue if Hillary had won. 

Since Trump’s election the divisiveness has been the result of Times and most of the media acting like an active wing of the DNC, denying his legitimacy, denigrating his successes, and exaggerating any failures.

The article claims:

“Because of your support and the Blethen family’s five generations of unwavering commitment to public service, The Seattle Times has become a role model and a beacon of light for the survival of our nation’s local free press system.”

While the Times may be a “role model” they apparently haven’t attracted much support from the other 50 regional metro newspapers.  It’s also not clear “the other 84% controlled by absentee financial opportunists damage local communities and civic engagement and deepen social fault lines by disinvesting in the quality and volume of local journalism”.

The justify the need for support claiming

Today’s free press and economic crises are the result of a serious erosion of checks and balances at least three decades in the making. 

Only the Times would claim the current “economic crises” was “at least three decades in the making”.  Much of the Times problem is self inflicted. The Times “filtered” approach to local and national problems turns off much of the more conservative older generation.  Younger voters are more attracted to the Internet.  Losing readers devalues advertising.

The Times approach to “Capitalism” exemplifies the paper’s approach to national issues.  The article claims “Capitalism is the most productive economic system the world has ever seen”. Yet concludes:

 

“Our capitalistic economic system has been co-opted by Wall Street at the expense of Main Street and healthy local economies. Wealth has been dangerously concentrated and left many Americans with little hope of working hard and building a secure life and family.”

Prior to the pandemic, the country’s economy was an historic success with record low levels of unemployment, wage growth, and economic prosperity.  It’s not clear how the paper proposes to “Address the dysfunctional control of our capitalism and wealth by far too few individuals and avaricious corporations.

The paper is rightly concerned about the need  “to regulate the Internet for public good rather than allow Facebook and Google to evolve into secretive, monopolistic and dangerous fiefdoms”.   However the papers real concern is not with how Facebook and Google “filter” their information it’s because they “prevent local media from profiting and competing in the digital advertising space”.

The Times solution a “Free Press Super Fund, funded by a fee on the major internet platforms” would have more credibility if supported by other regional papers whether or not they were locally owned.  

Again the Times could add to the value of its advertising by attracting more readers.  Instead they’ve spent a decade alienating much of their audience with their response to both national and local problems.

The End of My Gubernatorial Campaign?

My candidacy for governor is likely to end next week.  It was never about winning but an attempt to use the campaign as a platform to tell the entire state residents deserve better.  (As expected the Seattle Times neglected to mention my candidacy despite finishing 3rd in 2016.)  It's another attempt to tell voters the Puget Sound area has already paid and will continue to pay a heavy price for Sound Transit and WSDOT failure to deal with area’s roadway congestion.

Voters were misled when they approved Sound Transit Prop 1 light rail extensions beyond UW, across I-90, or beyond SeaTac.  Funds spent on those extensions should have been spent increasing bus transit capacity along I-5 and I-90 corridors with added parking and express bus routes. Light rail funds should have been used to expedite light rail to Ballard and West Seattle.  The WSDOT should have been forced to limit HOT on I-405 to one HOV lane with fees raised to assure 45 mph throughout the commute leaving an additional lane for GP.

Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff may be able to construct light rail extensions.  However his ridership claims for the $96 billion light rail extension in the 2019 Budget Plan for 2017 to 2041 are delusional.  It’s only a question of whether Northgate operation in 2021 or East Link operation in 2023 demonstrate that debacle. 

The end of my candidacy will likely allow Rogoff to continue spending billions more on additional extensions.   The extensions will increase rather than decrease congestion and require additional billions to cover the shortfall between the longer route operating costs and fare-box revenue.

None of this would have been possible without the connivance of the Seattle Times, who abetted the incompetence, the city councils who approved the permits needed, and the legislators who enabled Sound Transit votes for funding.  They all likely welcome the end of my campaign.

The entire state has already paid and will pay even more if the end of my candidacy allows Gov Inslee and others to perpetrate the “Green New Deal”.    The claim “CO2 emissions are an existential threat” is based on the failure of climatologists computer model results to match measured temperatures.   They concluded matching computer results required anthropogenic (man--made) CO2 emissions have 30 times the effect on global temperatures as increasing energy from the Sun.  That sensitivity to CO2 is the basis for the need to slash fossil fuel emissions.

However the National Academy of Science in 2015 debunked that claim, concluding global warming is “likely caused” by addition solar radiation from the Sun.  A NASA 2019 paper concluded CO2 could increase from the current 410 parts per million “to 1000 to 2000 or to 5,000 and it won’t warm the earth”.

The end of my candidacy would also continue the futility of even attempting to significantly reduce fossil emissions.  A July 1 2020 U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Today in Energy” reported the hundreds of billions spent adding wind turbines over the last 40 years provided only 2.5% of the energy consumed in 2019.  Whatever funds spent adding solar panels over that period provided only 1.0% of the energy consumed in the U.S. in 2019.

The problem has been only 35% of windmill capacity and 25% of solar power capacity is actually consumed by customers.  Until large amounts of energy can be stored for when the wind doesn’t blow or the Sun doesn’t shine the trillions spent adding wind turbines and solar panels will require fossil fueled generators for backup.  Thus it's unlikely the Green New Deal plan will ever provide more than a fraction of the country's energy used by consumers.

Much of any new wind and solar power will be generated far from where it’s needed, adding to the costs. By comparison fossil fuels can be found, transported, and stored near where the energy is needed.

Sooner or later my Sound Transit concerns and the futility of attempting to limit fossil emissions will be validated. Ending my campaign will make it later.

The Futility of the “Green New Deal”

The previous post detailed why I looked forward to having the opportunity to using National Academy of Science and NASA to use “Science” to debunk Gov Inslee’s support for “Green New Deal”. This post details there’s two reasons why it's fortunate “science” debunks the claim, “CO2 emissions are an existential threat”. 

The first being the US only emits 15% of global CO2 emissions.  It’s unlikely U.S. “leadership” will persuade China, India, and “undeveloped other” countries to significantly reduce their 67% of emissions. Spending trillions attempting to reduce U.S. emissions will have minimal effect on global temperatures.  

The second being its “unlikely” the Green New Deal will significantly reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuel.  A July 1 2020 U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Today in Energy” report announced “Non-fossil sources accounted for 20% of U.S. energy consumption in 2019”.  

However it also reported the hundreds of billions spent adding windmill capacity over the last 40 years provided only 2.5% of the energy consumed in 2019.  Whatever funds spent adding solar power capacity over that period provided only 1.0% of the energy consumed in the U.S. in 2019.

The problem is only 35% of windmill capacity and 25% of solar power capacity is consumed by customers. A wind turbine looses nearly 90% of its capacity if wind drops from 20 mph to 10 mph. Adding windmills in less "windy" conditions will undoubtedly reduce that capacity factor.  (The European windmill capacity factor is only 21%.)   Solar power drops with clouds and goes away at night. Until large amounts of energy can be stored wind and solar power will never be a reliable energy source requiring fossil fueled generators for back-up.   The fact that much of both wind and solar power is generated far from where it’s needed adds to the costs

By comparison fossil fuels can be found, transported, and stored near where the energy is needed, be it in a vehicle or airplane, a coal or natural gas power plant, heating a building, farming, or other industrial use (chemical, metallurgical, and mineral transformation).  (The energy stored in battery-powered cars “likely” comes from fossil powered plants)

My hope is to use the gubernatorial platform to tell the widest possible audience it’s unlikely the trillions spent on the Green New Deal will ever change that reality.

My Global Warming Denier Gubernatorial Platform

My Voters’ Pamphlet Statement this year reflects my attempt as a gubernatorial candidate to tell the widest possible audience Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” about CO2 emissions is in fact a monumental lie.   My hope was to use the general election as a platform to debunk Gov Inslee, one of the most prominent advocates for "CO2 emissions are an existential threat”.   

The reality is the Seattle Times decision to promote “Republican leaders” choice fractures the anti-Tim Eyman vote and other candidates willingness to spend funds on totally futile attempts to defeat Inslee make it less likely I’ll be on the ballot this fall. 

It's unfortunate since none of the other campaign ads I’ve seen have dealt with Sound Transit and WSDOT failure to reduce congestion or Seattle Times abetting that failure.  Also no one has mentioned the futility of Inslee's attempts to reduce the state’s carbon emissions with windmills, solar panels, or battery powered cars as the way to reduce global warming.

My global warming denier platform debunking the CO2 emission concerns would rely on two sources. (Replacing earlier analysis in Voters' Pamphlet) The first would be a National Academy of Science Nov 10^th 2015 paper:

Shortwave and Longwave Radiative Contributions to Global Warming Under Increasing CO₂

The paper concluded:

Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR), the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR)

The NAS clearly concluded global warming was the result of increased warming from the Sun not from increased radiation from the atmosphere due to CO2.

The second was a NASA Dec 9^th 2019 paper “Solar Cycle 25 Prediction 2019 – Bing”.  It included charts concluding the following:

Global Warming Ruse - Temperatures Getting Colder. CO2 is not a player

CO2 warning is a myth. The real threat is cold beginning of a new little ice age epoch in 2020.

It’s going to the cold for a very long time

CO2 warming effect decreases with concentration. CO2 has less and less effect with increased concentration.   CO2 can go to 1,000 to 2000 or to 5,000 and it won’t warm the earth. 

I look forward to the opportunity of using NAS and NASA to support my "global warming denier"  platform this fall.

Seattle Times “Republican” Gubernatorial Candidate

The Sunday Seattle Times article “GOP Pack Aims at Inslee” typifies the paper's and some "Republican's" arrogance when it comes to who they think the party should support.  It says a lot they would choose to describe Raul Garcia, who is “pro-choice”, hasn’t bothered to vote since 2012, and is “undecided” as to whether “he will vote for Trump” as “someone Republican leaders back for governor”.

The reality is Inslee is going to be re-elected.  The only question remains is who best can use the candidacy as a platform to benefit Washington residents.  The Times refuses to even acknowledge my candidacy despite the fact I finished 3^rd in 2016 having never asked for nor accepted any financial support for my campaign.  They (and some "Republicans") obviously don't want a candidate who will point out the paper's incompetent response to the area's problems, with the paper instead becoming an active wing of DNC.   

My general election platform would expose the  failure of Sound Transit and the WSDOT to deal with the area’s congestion.  That Sound Transit CEO Rogoff may be able to construct light rail extensions but he's totally incompetent when it comes to increasing the transit ridership needed to reduce congestion.  His 2019 budget plans to spend $96 billion on a light rail spine that will increase congestion and create a perpetual financial "black hole" to cover operating cost.   

Puget Sound residents need to be told how they would benefit if Sound Transit were required to divert light rail spine funds to increase bus transit capacity and light rail lines to West Seattle and Ballard. East side residents would benefit if WSDOT limited HOT to one I-405 lane with fees raised to assure 45 mph and an additional lane for GP.

The entire state needs an election platform debunking the claim “CO2 emissions are an existential threat”. Global temperatures are driven by the Sun.  Taxes on carbon or windmills and solar panels will do absolutely nothing to stop it.    

The bottom line is, unless other candidates support these issues, East Link operation in 2023 will vindicate my Sound Transit concerns; I-405 congestion will continue to increase on both GP and HOT lanes; and renewable energy and carbon taxes will continue to increase resident’s costs.  

Sooner or later all of my concerns will be validated.  My campaign is an attempt to make it sooner.

Puget Sound Residents Deserve Better

My candidacy for governor is not about winning but to use it as a platform to tell the entire state residents deserve better.  The Puget Sound area has already paid and will continue to pay a heavy price for Sound Transit and WSDOT failure to deal with area’s roadway congestion.

Voters should have never approved Sound Transit Prop 1 light rail extensions beyond UW, across I-90, or beyond SeaTac.  Light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) doesn’t have the capacity to justify the cost of construction and operation of their light rail spine.

The legislature should have never enabled Sound Transit to ask voters for any ST3 funds, let alone the $64 billion in taxes they anticipate getting as a result by 2041.  Sound Transit CEO Rogoff’s 2019 Budget Plan for 2017-2041 should have been a “wake-up” call for anyone who believed Sound Transit’s ST3 funded light rail extensions will reduce I-90 or I-5 congestion.  

While Rogoff may be able to construct a “light rail spine”, his ridership claims in the 2019 budget for the $96-billion expansions were delusional.  He demonstrated even more incompetence with a 2020 "budget" that failed to include any details as to how the money will be spent operating the transit modes for the year.  The Sound Transit Board response was to renew his contract for three years with a hefty raise.

His decision to use light rail to replace bus routes with light rail exacerbates the capacity problem.  It reflects his failure to recognize I-5 and I-90 congestion is not due to too many buses.  Ending current routes will reduce transit capacity into Seattle and increase roadway congestion.  Any riders added by the extensions will also reduce access for current Central Link riders. 

East side commuters have paid and will continue to pay an especially heavy price.  Sound Transit should have never been allowed to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway for East Link.  That doing so precluded two-way BRT, with 10 times light rail capacity, 10 years sooner, at I/10^th the cost.

Mercer Island residents deserve better from a city council that could have stopped East Link by disallowing permits Sound Transit needed.  They compounded that problem by failing to take legal action to prevent Sound Transit from using the island as a terminus for I-90 corridor buses.  Even worse their agreement with Sound Transit will halve I-90 corridor transit routes, increasing congestion along the entire corridor.

The Bellevue city council made a similar blunder by also approving East Link permits.  The result has been the end of Bellevue’s persona as the “city in the park”.  They allowed Sound Transit to make a mockery of environmental laws, ending the quiet solitude of the Mercer Slough Park and devastating a beautiful tree-lined boulevard into downtown Bellevue. 

The council also allowed Sound Transit to scar Bellevue skyline with their version of a viaduct with 4-car trains trundling through BelRed on elevated tracks for 18 hours a day.  They allowed Sound Transit to create a huge maintenance facility in the Spring District resulting in noisy light rail trains doing so during the early morning hours of the day.

All of this could have been prevented.  Again, Mercer Island and Bellevue could have disallowed East Link permits.  Their would have been no East Link if the WSDOT hadn't "misled" a federal judge in the Freeman litigation claiming the center roadway wasn’t needed for vehicles. The ignored a   2004 FHA ROD refuting that claim.  A.G. Ferguson allowed Sound Transit to violate the environmental laws and ignore RCW 81.104 requirements they consider lower cost bus transit options. 

Residents deserve better from a Seattle Times that  played a major role in abetting Sound Transit incompetence.  The Times never included auditing Sound Transit in their list of top 10 priorities for legislators.  Even a cursory review would have exposed the problems. Instead they advocated for tolls to reduce congestion, refusing to recognize that, without an alternative route, tolls only raise the cost.

In the end, East Link operation in 2023 will demonstrate it increases I-90 corridor congestion and reduces transit capacity into Seattle from SeaTac.  That large numbers of commuters will be “dissuaded” from using transit because of the hassle of transferring to and from light rail on Mercer Island and accessing light rail at one of the two stations in the DSTT. 

The lack of increased capacity and ridership with the longer routes will necessitate the entire area pay a huge subsidy to cover the operating cost-fare/box revenue shortfall. In short, East Link will quickly be regarded as the biggest boondoggle in transportation history.

East side commuters also deserve better than a  WSDOT that neglected to limit HOT to one lane on I-405.  The 2 HOT lanes have increased congestion on the remaining GP lanes to where more drivers are willing to pay the fees than the two HOV lanes can accommodate to meet 45 mph target. Again, 2 HOT lanes on I-40 increased GP lane congestion and failed to meet 45 mph for those willing to pay the fees.  Future growth will exacerbate both problems.

The WSDOT could have raised the fee on one HOV lane to limit traffic to the 2000 vph required to assure 45 mph for the entire commute.  (The assured velocity would make far more I-405 BRT routes attractive than Sound Transit plans for 6 routes an hour.) The added GP lane would have reduced congestion for those unwilling or unable to pay.  One can only hope the delay in adding lane between Bellevue and Renton reflects that recognition.

The bottom line is my gubernatorial candidacy provides a platform to detail why Puget Sound Residents deserve better.  They deserved a Seattle a Seattle Times that would have exposed the failure of Prop 1 and ST3 to address area's congestion.  They deserve a Sound Transit CEO who recognizes light rail limitations in our area.  That the only way to reduce congestion on I-5 and I-90 is to dramatically increase bus transit ridership with added parking and bus routes into Seattle and Bellevue.

East side residents deserve better than what they've gotten from their city councils and what they'll get from ST3.  They certainly deserve more than what they'll get from WSDOT plans for 2 HOT lanes on I-405.  Seattle residents deserve to have their ST3 funds spent on light rail extensions to Ballard and West Seattle, not a light rail spine that reduces their access.  

Again I look forward to making my case this fall on this and why the entire state deserves better. 


t