« The Friday saloon | Main | The Friday saloon »

August 05, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I dream of solar lizards scurrying across the barren desert called earth. No need to worry about solar power we will burn to death before we solve the energy problem.

Seems a few of us will be doing coffee at Urban Bean on Saturday?

"America spends vast sums subsidizing fossil fuels, including using the military as a global petroleum police force."

The US government spends vast sums subsidizing the world's fossil fuel consumption. Are there political groups or political candidates that oppose subsidizing fossil fuels? I know there are at least two but it hardly matters if the media acts as if they don't exist.

The amount of fossil fuels the US military uses to defend countries that export fossil fuels is pretty amazing too. I used to be able to whistle up the URL proof for that but I am certain it is out there somewhere.

Good series, look forward to the future installments.
Like you, I've always been puzzled by the failure to embrace solar in Arizona. Back in the mid-fifties as a Boy Scout, my troop's "niche" was the building of solar reflectors and ovens and the demonstration of what the technology could do.
Solar arrays could certainly be effective as 'shades' for all the parking lots, but then again APS would probably want money for parking too.

Sun and Water. We have plenty of sun but


I got my "still suit" ready.

A quote from Charles Bowden on the LA Times piece above.

"for me this is a kind of bitter pleasure since killing the hidden waters was published in 1977 and i was cut loose from my job at the university of arizona for writing it. i was struck by climate deniers pelting the comments of latimes story and mentioning the great drought of the 13th century as if to say so what. they failed to explained how the 7 million people in arizona and the 2 million in new mexico weathered that period."

Bowden is referring to his book "Killing the Hidden Waters>"

Readers of the Rogue Columnist might be interested in the forthcoming exhibit Selling Sunshine: ASU Solar Energy Research 1951-1981 to be presented in Hayden Library in September by University Archives!

"Had Arizona been a different state, it would have given cities the ability to mandate not just solar panels on every new house but designs that maximize energy conservation and shade."

Great post, except for the brezhnev conclusions. Such mandates would require not just being a different state, but being a state in a whole different sort of country. I'd gladly give up shade to preserve the freedoms in this country that tend to prohibit such heavy-handed governmental orders. Of course, that's not to say that when you point out the many problems of my chosen home desert, Jon, you aren't often correct.

Obama was in town, Brewer was cordial and an auditorium full of Arizona's youth sang Happy Birthday to the President. Oh, and Phoenix is cooler than Seattle today (and it's August). It's been a nice respite from the norm so far this week. Now if we can only get it to snow in Phoenix this winter and convince the old retirees to return to Ohio!

Solar in Arizona is at a critical juncture. ASU is an institution leading in onesite solar installations. Arizona leads the U.S. in per per capita solar capacity. It is under threat from APS but if enough pressure from various business interests, including solar, is applied the Arizona Corporation Commission will likely not bend to the will of APS. Brewer has mentioned solar as an economic feature that is important for the state. Here's hoping she is as serious about solar as she was about Obamacare.

Here's what I wrote about Obama in Phoenix:


Great column in the Seattle Times! It is also interesting to note that owning a single family, detached home in the suburbs is no longer the "American Dream" for younger generations and even a growing number of retirees. Therefore, I would describe the President's speech touting a recovering housing market, especially a market shaped by suburban tract homes, as obsolescent.

All quotes here by Rogue unless otherwise attributed:

"...many solar arrays require water for cooling or, at the least, to wash dust from the photovoltaic cells for optimal performance."

Photovoltaic electric generating plants don't bother washing off their panels, even though clean panels are more efficient than those with a slight filming of dust. They calculate that it is more energy efficient to wait until the next rainstorm.

As for plants like Solana which use parabolic mirrors and do require water for cooling, Solana still uses far less water than the agricultural land use it displaced.

"(Solana) takes up three square miles of land."

A natural gas plant of similar output would take up considerably less space; however, the solar plant puts out 475,000 tons less of CO2 per year than a comparable natural-gas powered plant (and obviously far, far less than a coal-fired plant).

It has six hours of after-dark energy storage (molten salt stores heat from the sun) and newer tower systems can extend this further.

Solara's comparatively small power output can be increased by building more and/or larger solar plants. There is no reason why conventional power plants can't be relagated to a continuity/backup system to fill the inevitable gaps when skies cloud over and in the wee hours of the night.

It isn't a case of one OR the other; it's a question of how much can we reduce CO2 emissions through power plant conversions to clean energy. The answer is: quite a lot. This will be even MORE important as China puts more dirty coal-fired plants on line as its consumer class grows. That conventional power generation systems will still be needed to take up the slack during off hours and cloudy weather doesn't change this. Gas-fired plants are better at this than coal-fired plants because intermittent operation of the latter is problematic for technical reasons; but that's fine because we want the conventional core (or residue) of power generation to be as environmentally friendly as possible.

"Solar power won't power cars, and the American "lifestyle" of long, single-occupancy automobile driving is one of the biggest consumers of energy and causes of greenhouse gas emissions."

Electricity can power cars: it is just a matter of time before this becomes practical (e.g., affordable electric cars) and the infrastructure is put into place. When it does, the CO2 emissions will depend on whether the electricity they are powered by is generated mostly by coal or gas fired plants or by clean plants like solar.

"There was no way solar could compete. It's still difficult."

Many coal fired plants were build decades ago; their fixed costs have been fully recovered. Solar plants built by private interests require huge outlays of capital to build them: these must be recovered, with a profit sufficiently attractive to private investors, over a sufficiently short time period; else investors will put their capital where it can earn more, faster. Those returns to investors come from the price of electricity charged to consumers. Additionally, precisely because solar is so small scale at present, it lacks the economies of scale which make conventional power generation less expensive.

Obviously, what solar needs is federal government investment, on a scale that private investors aren't willing to make, on a non-profit basis, and without including building costs in the price of electricity (or recovering them over a much longer period), but pricing electricity to fund ongoing operating and maintenance costs. That would be by far the more efficient form of subsidy. This rooftop solar panel shtick is great PR but ultimately not very efficient.

The government could probably create full solar capacity on a national scale for $100 billion dollars. Even if it was twice that expensive (or even five times that expensive, though there is no reason it needs to be), it would still be a bargain. The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office says that between 2001 and 2012 the U.S. expenses for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $1.4 trillion (that's $1,400 billion).


Cheap electricity could also fund projects of national importance such as desalination (which is expensive because it uses a lot of energy): this could be important in future given the possibility of decreased rainfall and snowmelts and water shortages.

Well done Emil.
Especially this
"The government could probably create full solar capacity on a national scale for $100 billion dollars. Even if it was twice that expensive (or even five times that expensive, though there is no reason it needs to be), it would still be a bargain. The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office says that between 2001 and 2012 the U.S. expenses for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $1.4 trillion (that's $1,400 billion)."

Detroit has a more promising future than Phoenix. The Arizona political class has inflicted irreparable damage to the state's reputation. Right wing extremism in action.

Hopes expressed that retirees return to Ohio? They won't be replaced by young, ambitious Ohioans. Even in the reddest of states, Arizona is looked upon as ignorant and highly intolerant.

Arizona doesn't have the technological talent to build a competitive 21st century economy. Bashing retirees and Ohioans is actually another example of fundamental intolerance in the GREAT STUPID STUPID STATE OF ARIZONA.

This is my first time commenting, but I've been reading this blog for a few months and really appreciate your perspective. I especially like Phoenix 101.

In this post, though, I think you're relying on some of the false conventional wisdom that surrounds solar. Emil already explained how the fixed costs of coal plants and palo verde have already been recovered, because they were built decades ago. As these plants age, it's time for new investments in our energy infrastructure in the form of utility scale solar and widespread distributed generation solar (I disagree with Emil on the point about rooftop solar being a schtick). We're in a transitional stage in our energy infrastructure, and there's a lot of uncertainty about investments and traditional utility business models. I think it's perfectly understandable, although wrong, for people to be a little panicky about the future and want to continue with the old models.

Also, you talk about the size of solar farms and natural gas and nuclear plants as though they can be compared. You deem solar "invasive" and say that the natural gas/PV plants are much smaller and more efficient. However, once solar is built, there's no need to import the fuel to run the plant. There's no need to dig or frack to get the fuel. While there certainly are issues with solar farms and protection of habitat, it's wrong to talk about the natural gas plants and PV as though they only disturb their small acreage. They have to get their fuel from somewhere, and then the fuel has to be transported here because we have 0 natural gas fields. We even import a lot of our coal. Solar (and to a much lesser extent wind) is the only fuel source that we have an abundance of right here.

I could go on, but I won't. The solar industry is in its infancy. I'm reading "The Age of Edison" right now, about how electricity was panned as too expensive and too dangerous. However, as the technologies around electricity improved and the infrastructure grew, it completely overtook the old gas lighting industry. I think we're seeing this battle now between our fuel sources.

The REIC continues here in Phx. I've noticed homes (north of RC's definition of Central Phoenix -- above Osborn) are now back to 2006 price levels. What you could get for $50K 3 to 5 years ago is now at $150K! Noticeably, remodelers/flippers get in at a low price, slap a coat of paint on and viola ~ $25 to 50K in profit! How bad will this end?

Emil and Maren both make excellent points that are so often ignored or forgotten. I'm always miffed by the assumption that alternative energy sources have to be a magic bullet. No the sun doesn't shine all day, no the wind doesn't always blow, but so what? The goal isn't to get everyone off the grid, but to put each generating mode to its best use to make a more diversified and robust electrical system. There's no need to dismantle or even dial back the existing grid, which is still needed, but it can be run a lot more efficiently when it just has to serve a consistent base load.

The no-brainer with solar is that its peak output corresponds with maximum air conditioning load. That's when the brownouts happen, and when the expensive "peaker" plants are brought online that cost the utility a lot more to operate (though this is temporarily mitigated by the low cost of natural gas). Rooftop solar is the best solution because it's occupying already destroyed habitat, it shades the buildings or parking lots where you don't want heat, and it's generating electricity at the point of use. Win, win, win.

"Bashing retirees and Ohioans is actually another example of fundamental intolerance in the GREAT STUPID STUPID STATE OF ARIZONA." - Drifter

And I thought only "Arizonans" were hypersensitive. Drifter, the rise of the far right in Arizona coincides with the rise in emigration of retirees to Arizona; particularly from the Midwest. If you are looking for fundamental intolerance you've come to the wrong site. You should consider that many of Arpaio's most ardent supporters are out-of-state and "as much as 80% of his campaign's $8 million from out-of-state donors." Much of that support coming from the Midwest.

"They won't be replaced by young, ambitious Ohioans." -Drifter

We don't need them to be as we have plenty of young, ambitious Latinos.

Simon ese

phxSUNfan a member of the latest generation of Arizona boosters. Living in denial, the Arizona way.

What exactly am I denying lifer? Please, inform us. My guess is that you probably don't even know what my political afflictions or stances are and making ill-informed assumptions. And I thought only "Arizonans" were reactionary. I'm learning much today.

Haha! I think I am writing at a subconscious level. Political afflictions they may be, but I really meant affiliations.

Interesting news from the wind farm industry: A farm in Mojave County near Kingman will generate enough electricity to power 175,000 homes. In terms of land use, wind is less efficient when it comes to producing power than solar. However, it is much better than fracking. It will be built on 38,000 acres (roughly 59 square miles). In terms of land use, solar is much more efficient and less invasive. Animals are also at less risk from solar farms. Animals can migrate through and around solar farms but hundreds of thousands of birds are lost to wind farms every year .

Between power plants that generate electricity and motor vehicle exhaust (gasoline powered engines) the vast majority of man-made CO2 emissions are accounted for.

China will be adding both as its consumer class grows. It will be adding power plants because new consumers (and higher levels of consumption from existing consumers) and businesses catering to them require the national electricity output to be increased; and coal-fired plants are the cheapest option.

China will also be adding automobiles: from 62 million in 2009 to an estimated 200 million by 2020. After that, more. India may be following along in China's footsteps.

China is the Number 1 CO2 polluter in the world on an annual basis. Its level of CO2 output (and its rate of increase of this output) is so high that it is quickly gaining on the United States for the dubious title of all-time (historical) CO2 output.

The United States is Number 2, annually. It's tempting to say that because China is the bigger polluter that the United States needn't act unless China can be compelled to do so also. Certainly China needs to be compelled to act; meanwhile, China's increase in world CO2 output makes it even more important for the United States to decrease its output as a substantial partial offset.

Mr. Talton is quite right about American individualism where personal travel is concerned. Like it or not the private auto is here to stay for a long, long time. There are, at present, only two major options for eliminating automobile CO2 emissions: (1) electric cars (but only if the electricity they use is produced by green sources like solar); (2) carbon-neutral synthetic fuels; these can be made from industrial CO2 emissions and water, and used in cars and jets without the need for modified engine designs. Also note that the energy for the synthesization process can come from solar, but only if solar electricity is cheap enough.

Here's some background on carbon-neutral synthetic fuels (e.g., gasoline and jet fuel), courtesy of a 2010 proposal by a private company. While it's quite common for small start-ups to hype their product to the point of misrepresentation in the hope of attracting investment capital, the general processes involved are real. (My primary question is whether this can really be done as cheaply as suggested here.)

An excerpt:

"Doty Energy is developing advanced processes to permit the production of fully carbon-neutral gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, ethanol, and plastics from exhaust CO2 and off-peak clean energy (wind and nuclear) at prices that can compete with fossil-derived products.

"Converting CO2 into fuels will eliminate the need for CO2 sequestration, reduce global CO2 emissions by 40%, and provide a nearly insatiable market for off-peak wind. It has long been known that it is theoretically possible to convert CO2 and water into standard liquid hydrocarbon fuels at high efficiency. However, the early proposals for doing this conversion had efficiencies of only 25% to 35%. That is, the chemical energy in the liquid fuels produced (gasoline, ethanol, etc.) would be about the 30% of the input energy required. The combination of the eight major technical advances made over the past two years should permit this conversion to be done at up to 60% efficiency.

"Off-peak grid energy averaged only $16.4/MWhr in the Minnesota hub throughout all of 2009 (the cheapest 6 hours/day averaged only $7.1/MWh). At such prices, the synthesized standard liquid fuels (dubbed “WindFuels”) should compete even when petroleum is only $45/bbl.

"A more scalable alternative for transportation fuels is needed than biofuels. It is in our economic and security interests to produce transportation fuels domestically at the scale of hundreds of billions of gallons per year. WindFuels can scale to this level, and as they are fully carbon-neutral they will dramatically reduce global CO2 emissions at the same time. Switching 70% of global transportation fuels from petroleum to WindFuels should be possible over the next 30 years.

"WindFuels will insure extremely strong growth in wind energy for many decades by generating an enormous market for offpeak wind energy."


If this is true it's a game changer. If not, I'd like to know. Any word on this from energy experts? I've scarcely seen anything in the general media about this.

phxSUNSfan, one additional point about wind power (the land-based kind, not the offshore variety): when it comes to building new generating plants, it's cheaper than anything except for natural gas (conventional and advanced combined cycle).

It's cheaper than coal, cheaper than nuclear, and even cheaper than geothermal and hydroelectric; and it's way cheaper than solar.

Scroll down to Table 1 and read the total cost (far right column, in U.S. dollars per megawatt hours):


Carefully read the footnote to Table 1 which states that these costs do NOT include targeted tax credits such as production or investment tax credits for certain technologies.

Table 2 attempts to consider regional cost variations.

From a 2012 issue of Foreign Policy:

"...probably the biggest single factor in the off-shoring of large chunks of U.S. based production and millions of jobs abroad has been the packages of financial investment incentives offered by China and others to global companies to encourage them to relocate production. More jobs have been lost to these packages than to currency manipulation. But you can't complain about rules violations because there are no rules to cover these investment incentives. At the federal level, America doesn't offer such incentives but there is not WTO or IMF or other rule against it. Nor is the United States proposing any rules in this area."

I have to wonder whether the United States could do its manufacturing sector (think: good paying jobs) a big favor, as well as slow down China's environmentally reckless economic expansion, by offering better relocation incentives? Obviously, this could be pretty expensive. However, I've yet to see any numbers on this; and the U.S. could also target specific sectors (e.g., high-tech) leaving, say, clothing production to the developing countries.

Or, more broadly, investment incentives. (I should have edited that one better.)

And that should read "per megawatt-hour" not "megawatt hours" above.

Emil, while it is true that wind is cheaper to build than solar, most analyses ignore the externalities. These include the opportunity cost associated with the massive amount of land used and endangered bird species put at increased risk. I'm not against wind but do think that it should be used selectively after environmental impacts (migratory patterns) are carefully accessed. I'm for a "diversified portfolio" when it comes to energy production. The increased use of renewable energy in place of coal should be high priority. The innovation surround fossil-derived biofuels is very interesting. The ongoing research at ASU regarding algal-bases fuels, among other biomass based fuels, is also important in terms of this discussion.

Emil, this short video about the research surrounding Sustainable Bioreactors at ASU might be of interest to you. They mention CO2/water captured and applied to biomasses for fuel.


"They won't be replaced by young, ambitious Ohioans." -Drifter

We don't need them to be as we have plenty of young, ambitious Latinos.-phxSUNfan

What about Arizona having plenty of young, ambitious African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans and Anglo Americans?

Only Latinos are worthy of phxSUNfan's mention?

Arizona Land of the White Right to be supplanted by Latino First Movement.

From one form of intolerance to the next. Rather than self reflect on Arizona's indigenous and present day shortcomings, blame a vast and diverse region of the US for your horrendous image problem.

Arizona, land of the Kook and the Intolerant.

Living in denial and playing the blame game.

We don't need them to be as we have plenty of young, ambitious Latinos.-phxSUNfan

Are the graduates of Trevor Brown and Carl Hayden High School being properly educated to compete effectively in the 21st century global economy? What percentage of the students at Brophy or Arcadia High School are Latino?

The educational system in Arizona is much closer to Mississippi than Massachusetts or Minnesota.

The technological talent clusters do not exist in Phooenix to compete with Austin or Seattle. Go Daddy based in Scottsdale was forced to open a high paying employment operation in Washington state because the talent does not exist to operate in Phoenix.

The young and ambitious in Arizona should leave the state for cities with a promising economic future just as a generation ago the ambitious fled the rust belt for better places.

Need more sunshine on the class war.


From Frontera list

I am silent because this is a great thread and I have nothing of interest to add.

Thanks to all.

Aw com on Petro, it's because of this blog and folks like U, Jon, Phxsumfan,Emil and many other great thinkers that has turned this dumb Iowa farm boy into a informed dude cruising the great Sonoran desert.
What's left of it.

As U all know Petro has his own web site with great intellectual posts. Check him out. C U at coffee Saturday, Petro.

What time on Saturday?


Drifter, interestingly, you sound like on of the kooks that use to post on AZCentral.com. We all know that Arizona's future hinges on the large Latino population since it represents the fastest growing demographic. ASU, UofA, and the community college systems in the state have a significant percentage of Latino students. What is good for Latinos in Arizona is good for every minority group, including women and gays.

As for Go Daddy, the company recently broke ground on a Global Technology Center in Tempe this May. The company has offices all over the west; usually around prominent universities.

You would be surprised (though you shouldn't) by what students at Carl Hayden and Trevor Browne are accomplishing. These two schools are part of the Phoenix Union High School District. A district that has a few of the state's prominent science programs that have been recognized nationally. That includes Carl Hayden and Trevor Browne which have improved academically in the last few years. Lower teen pregnancy rates in Arizona, especially among Latinas, are likely a result of improved academic achievement and better sex education in the schools. "Rates in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada and Utah fell by 30% or more ."

Schools in PUHSD are also better funded since residents within the district have voted for school bond increases every time they are asked. However, the kooks at the State hinder success on a larger scale and at a faster rate; underfunding is just one of the problems. This isn't only an issue in our state, it is a national crisis. Even states like Massachusetts and Minnesota are falling behind globally.

Drifter asked about Arcadia High School in Phoenix. It is in the Scottsdale Unified School District and a "highly performing" school. It's student body is 38% non-White (30% Latino/Hispanic). Arcadia's demographic profile is a mirror image of the State's. Hispanic/Latinos make up approx. 30% of the population in Arizona.

Stern -- "Great post, except for the brezhnev conclusions. Such mandates would require not just being a different state, but being a state in a whole different sort of country. I'd gladly give up shade to preserve the freedoms in this country that tend to prohibit such heavy-handed governmental orders."

What blather you spew!

There are all kinds of building codes or, 'mandates', that ensure that houses be built to reasonable standards.

Some of these standards even favor certain businesses -- entrenched, large, powerful businesses -- who know how to throw their weight around. You know: the kind of 'private' power you endorse.

Although, it's hard to conceive of large global conglomerates who buy and run governments as 'private'. They are more like feudal entities that need to be cut down to size -- or fall of their own weight.

Your personal 'freedom' -- really? Do you view brushing your teeth through the Randian prism?

The Saturday coffee meet is secret and private. No outsiders allowed.

The Baltic region of the earth is overflowing with wind turbines. What do they know that we don't know?

The Baltic region of the earth has a 200% tax on auto purchases. What do they know that we don't know?

London has a very high "walkability score". Super. So replacing 2 million private cars with 2 million cabs is progress? Kind of makes you go Huh??

Russian infrastructure is crumbling. American infrastructure is crumbling.
Non-super powers are growing and thriving. New construction, new everything. Makes you kind of go Huh?

Maybe the Stuper-Powers are spending all their wealth on weapons while the smart-powers are building a new better world for themselves.

America from abroad looks like a paranoid, afraid of its shadow chicken little. It was not a pretty view.

While we go from one DHS scare to another, the rest of the world is thriving and living the good life.

I mistakenly labeled Arcadia High School as "Highly Performing." Arcadia is actually an "Excelling" school which is the highest level on the performance scale. A relative who is an educator informed me that I was incorrect.

phxsunfan i left u a paper chicken little
note back on friday saloon.

AZReb, R. Perez just call me Snowden for leaking the fan club coffee meet.
And of course U know that the big HLS alert is Snowdens fault!

Reb, Russia seems to going through a bit of a renaissance - I'll not comment on its long-term sustainability. Dmitry Orlov:

Russia seems to be developing into the United States of the 1990s, while the US seems to be developing into a vast wasteland of boarded-up strip malls and suburban slums surrounding abandoned downtowns.

Regularly Scheduled Programming

(Obligatory ending aside to thwart the spam filter.)

The spam filter might be too effective. My last post fell into it.

Cal, followed up with a little note in the Friday Saloon. I don't think your comments are "chicken little." Differences in opinion and cynicism are appropriate in a democracy like ours.

Petro, downtowns in U.S. cities are undergoing their own renaissances. More are populated today than 10 years ago: "New census data shows that America's cities continue to grow at a faster rate than their suburbs, sustaining the reversal of a decades-long trend."


Urban places in the U.S. have been growing faster than suburbia for the last 3 years.

(Inserting words to avoid the trap).

pSf - I have no doubt that, at least in the near-long-term, that suburbs are more likely to get ugly than urban centers.

Perhaps the fact that one is used to the "roughage" of urbanity might contribute to the equation. :)

We all know - right? - that spammers are going to start putting a little text after their links to thwart the filter like we're doing... and the filters will respond, and we will have to be ever more clever, until, and then again, and, and... how long is this Internet deal going to last, anyway?


"The Baltic region of the earth is overflowing with wind turbines. What do they know that we don't know?"

Reb, maybe I'm wrong, but aren't most of those Baltic wind-farms offshore? Because that's a highly inefficient and costly form of wind-power (because the capital costs to build are so high).

Regular, land-based wind-power does have some additional advantages over solar, at least potentially. There are places where the wind not only blows very fast, but all the time, day and night, rain or shine, and pretty much year round. Those are the places where the cost to build wind-farms really pays off in high energy output for the building costs. You can get pretty dependable power from such farms.

"The Baltic region of the earth has a 200% tax on auto purchases. What do they know that we don't know?"

Reb, I think you may be referring to Denmark. Electric cars are exempt from the tax. Despite that, "models on the market are so limited that only 497 of them are registered in the entire country".


I'm sorry about the spam filter. I don't have the answer, so I try to check regularly. When I take off the letter verification, the comments fill up with genuine spam. So that won't work. Thanks for your patience, and, as always, the smartest comments on the blogsphere.


It looks like from maps of wind farms, the majority of the turbines are on land. Before I looked at the maps I was going to guess 80% on land and 20% off shore. But the maps look more like 95% on land and 5% off shore.

You are correct about Denmark, with other countries trying to follow suit.

Gas was about $7 per gallon.

The most shocking aspect of the trip was their effort against intoxication. A Jack Daniels and coke was around $25. It was a very sobering experience for me. If you get my drift.

The new ADBUSTER is out with some choice comments like, "our planet is heating up 50 times faster than it has any time in human civilization (11,000 years)"

and Edward Abbey used to say "Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul."

and "Monsanto uses the same business logic as a crack dealer."

and dont miss the experiment completed by some young girls that led to the article "Your brain on iPhone." talk about heating up.

I wanted to address some of Drifter's other comments: particularly those regarding "indigenous" problems in Arizona and its current reputation.

"Rather than self reflect (sic) on Arizona's indigenous and present day shortcomings, blame a vast and diverse region of the US for your horrendous image problem." -Drifter

When you write "indigenous" you have to consider the context. When my parents grew up in Arizona in the 1960s and 1970s the population was approximately 1,302,161. Today there are 6,553,255 people in the state. That is one of the fastest rates of growth of any state in the Union. Most of the growth can be attributed to emigration from other regions; primarily California and the Midwest. Arizona's native population did not more than quintuple (nearly sextuple) naturally within a generation (or two).

The question now is what do we do to counter the kookification of the state? One is to continue encouraging the minority (primarily the Latino) and youth electorate to vote.

Some of the most frustrating and crazy State Legislators and Senators are from out-of-state: Rep. Debbie Lesko, Arizona's ALEC Chairperson, is from Wisconsin. She was a "passionate" supporter of AZ HB2625 - "which is a bill that [allows] ANY employer to deny contraceptive coverage to any and all employees." Here is Debbie Lesko crashing a Democratic press conference regarding HB2625. Other similarly crazy or ill-informed Legislators are: Rep. Carl Seel (a "Birther" from California), John Kavanagh (from New Jersey), and Andy Tobin (from New York). Let's not forget that Arpaio is from Massachusetts. Former State Senator Lori Klein who, during an interview, infamously pointed a "cute" pink Ruger at a reporter is from New Jersey/Indiana. She also read a fake, racist letter about Hispanic students on the Senate Floor.

This is not to say that there are no native-born extremist, past or present, in Arizon's statehouse: Russell Pearce is a native from Mesa. I find it fitting that his native city (district) recalled his ass. However, if we look into backgrounds of our current state Legislators and Senators, how many are actually "indigenous?" Arizona is historically a conservative state; but the increasingly kooky state of politics this decade is new. The historical perspective from many natives regarding the region and state has almost been lost.

Yes, now these kooks have become our problem. Nonetheless, we natives can still lament their migration to our wonderful state.

I apologize for hijacking the thread. I'm done venting my frustrating regarding our transplant population.

Phxsunfan, I love it when you get all heated up.

I certainly agree with your sentiments on a number of residents that came to Arizona from other states and the crazy legislators that inhabit elected” office today in Arizona. We certainly have our share. When I got here from Iowa in 1950 there were about 186,000 folks in the “valley”. And the state was somewhat conservative but ruled by the Democratic Party but that soon changed to reasonable republicans. Nothing like the craziness we now have. I take it when you refer to natives in your rant (just kidding) you are talking natives after 1400. Regarding a small stable population I believe prior to 1400 from about Hermosillo to Phoenix the population stayed stable around 1000 folks, due to the natural hostile climate. If I had my way there would be no more development in Arizona. Well maybe some infill but I would make the rest a wilderness. That would include all of Oak Creek Canyon from the rim to Sedona. Now who is crazy? Cal and his phantom dog spot somewhere in their Motor home in the great Sonoran desert, what’s left of it. Do a good deed and plant a Saguaro not a strip of asphalt.

Cal, you are right, "natives" in my rant are not the same thing as Natives, Native Americans, or Native Indians. I believe there were well over 100,000 Natives between Hermosillo and Phoenix before 1400. Tens of thousands of Hohokam lived in the Sonoran Desert of modern by Arizona alone; many along the Salt and Gila Rivers (estimates range between 24,000 and 60,000). My ethnicity/race, the Mestizo, was not yet conceived by 1400. That would take at least another 92 years.

Mestizo as defined by former Senator Alfredo Guiterrez is the result of a rape.

The number for Aboriginal for the Sonoran desert is stated as being about 150,000. My numbers were actually about the Seri's that occupied a portion of the Sonoran desert along the coast of the Gulf of California and south west of the Pima Bajos and Pima Altos.

Primera Alta, that part of the desert from Magdalena, Sonora, to the Gila and west to the gulf, held maybe 20,000 riverine people and 10,000 desert Papago. In all, perhaps 30,000 humans spread out over 60,000 square miles: A half a man a mile. (Sauer, C.O., 1935)" Taken from Page 39 of "killing the Hidden Waters."

"Mestizo as defined by former Senator Alfredo Guiterrez is the result of a rape." -Cal Lash

That is true. The conquistadors weren't really making too many friends in those days. Marriages between the Spanish and Amerindians weren't rare further along. This was especially true in present day New Mexico.

There have been many more discoveries since 1935. More Native American settlements have been uncovered; thus larger numbers attributed to different groups including the Mogollon. Recent finding also show large Pima (Akimel O'Odham) settlements north and south of Hohokam sites along the Salt and Gila and into present day Scottsdale. The Pima cultures, unlike the Hohokam, did not mysteriously disappear. However, many Pima consider themselves the direct descents of the Hohokam. Hohokam translates as "those who have gone". Native American history is very interesting. Before moving to Arizona I did not know there were so many different tribes among the various cultures.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz