Keep Tahoe Blue

Silver Stock Report

by Jason Hommel, August 17th, 2011

My intellectual curiosity got the best of me, and so, I attended the Lake Tahoe Summit 2011, the 15th Annual event sponsored by CA Senator, Diane Feinstein. 
15th annual Lake Tahoe Summit: Restoration may depend on private dollars, officials sayhttp://www.sierrasun.com/article/20110816/NEWS/110819957/1066&ParentProfile=1051
Governor Jerry Brown also spoke.  What did they say?  Not much other than self-congradulatory absurd nonsense, and that they measured success by the only way they know how, by how much government money they threw at the problem!  What problem?
It's all about keeping Tahoe Blue!  See, the waters of Lake Tahoe are crystal clear, and the depth of the visible clarity has varied over the last 43 years anywhere from about 120 feet to 60 feet, with the lake generally slightly losing slight clarity over this recent time period.
The Federal government has spent $1.5 billion dollars, since 1997, to "help keep Tahoe Blue."  I wonder if they even know why the lake is clear?  See, I asked the question since the lake has probably always been clear for thousands of years.  The truth is that the "keep Tahoe Blue" lady did not know what actually keeps Tahoe waters clear and blue.
 
She admitted that scientists don't actually know if it's the low winter temperature, or whether it's the depth of the lake waters, or whether it's something in the local mountainous sediment that actually retards algae growth that helps keep the waters clear.

Nevertheless, the $1.5 billion spent to keep Tahoe waters clear have been spent primarily to reduce sediment runoff into the lake, despite the fact that they can only theorize that less sediment might keep the waters clear.  Or not.  Runoff sediment might also kill the algae that cloud the waters, but they don't really know. 
What's really peculiar is that while they boast about all this spending over the last 15 years, that's precisely the time period of a growth of a particular strain of algae that is admittedly responsible for 99% of the clouding of the waters.  Furthermore, this algae was previously present in the lake, and also absent from the lake, prior to this recent 15 year period.  So, it could be that the slight clouding of the waters is a recurring natural phenomenon completely unrelated to recent activity by man, and thus, 100% of the government's efforts could be completely wasted.
Actually, the scientific data show that when the Tahoe waters are more mixed up from the depths, such as from wind and waves, the water clarity increases.  In other words, the lake may well be self cleaning due to the depth of the waters, and the cold, and possibly also by the type of sediment runoff into the lake, but again, they don't really know. 
What's particularly interesting is that about 100 years ago, most of the trees in the Tahoe Basin were clearcut for mining interests in Virgina city, the Comstock silver load.  Even with all those trees gone, and even with all the increased sediment going into the lake at that time, the waters of Tahoe remain crystal clear blue to this day.
Nevertheless, even though history shows that cutting all the trees in Tahoe won't cloud the lake, there is a ban on cutting trees with a diameter of over 30 inches, because it might be an "old growth" tree of over 100 years old, and cutting one tree down might damage the clarity of the lake, due to the theory of increased erosion causing lake clouding.  So, not only is government spending wasteful, but it's actually harmful, as it's preventing people from developing their own properties as they wish.
Here's another hypocritical issue that makes no sense:  This "movement" to "keep Tahoe Blue" so that future generations of people can see the clear waters, is somehow far more important than actually allowing people now to build homes and cabins so that people today can actually have a place to stay so that they can come up to the lake now and enjoy it.   Quite the contradiction I think.  The literature at this "green" event boasts of all the development projects that have been prevented or put on hold due to litigation. 
See, they actually turn around that whole legal maxim, "innocent until proven guilty", and now, if you are a developer, you are guilty of potentially clouding the waters of lake Tahoe, until you can prove yourself innocent.  But they don't have to prove their theories one iota.  Another hypocritical contradiction.
This year, the annual government budget for keeping Tahoe Blue went down from about $300 million down to about $34 million, so private sector donations are expected to help pick up the slack.  They boasted of raising $200,000 from the private sector in the last few days.
But keep the faith!  It seems like a faith, actually.  Isn't this excessive and unscientific environmentalism a lot like "Earth Worship"?  Isn't it a religion then?  If so, then it seems like it's a violation of the "establishment" clause of the first amendment for any government money to be spent at all on this kind of a project, since the first amendment bans the government from establishing a religion.  But that's exactly what they have done.
This faith even has it's own prophecy of doom.  "If nothing is done, the lake waters could turn gray from all the pollution of man in less than ten years, and we must do anything possible to prevent that."   Even $1.5 billion spent, regardless of scientific proof of any merit.  If a man's life is worth $1 million, then they just wasted 1,500 lives over the past 15 years, on nothing.
But they really don't know if they can prevent the lake from clouding over, or not, nor do they really know what they should be doing to prevent that, but they now assume it's mostly likely "road sediment" that is the most important factor to limit. 
Again, hypocritically, their false prophecy does assume that if the lake waters turn gray, they could never reverse the damage, which makes spending as much as possible now, into a "dire emergency". 
There's no evidence at all whether the lake clouding trend of the last 43 years is part of a larger 80 year clouding and clearing cycle!  Based on the current theory that sediment causes lake clouding, I can only assume the lake was more cloudy back 100 years ago when they clear cut all the trees, but there's no evidence of that, either!  But doing "something" seems better than doing nothing.  They have no idea whether they will be adding Tahoe ground sediment into the lake 20 years from now to kill off the algae growth!
Note, there are no plans to "keep the sun yellow" or "keep the skies blue", because it is generally assumed that they will always stay that way.  Well, lake Tahoe has been around for 6000 years or more, with clear waters, so I tend to think that trend will continue, regardless of how much money the government spends.
Perhaps instead of "keep Tahoe Blue", we ought to champion, "keep Politicians poor!"
The point is that the politicians continue to spend the dollar until it will ultimately self-destruct, which it should have done by now, if most people had a clue.
Bonds will pay less than inflation now.
US Bonds that pay 3.6% per year over 30 years have a major downside risk; specifically, they are likely to increase far less than inflation.  Gas prices have increased, over the last ten years, from $1.50 to $3.50 per gallon, which is an annual increase of 8.5%. Currency creation now stands at about $2 trillion annually, which is an increase of about 13%! Your investments must now increase by 13% per year, just to stay ahead of inflation. Thus, bonds have a negative real return!
The solution is silver.  Buy silver.
Silver has gone up, now, from $4.15/oz. in 2003 to $40.87/oz. this week in the fall of 2011.  Silver is going up by 31%, on average, per year, over the last 8.5 years.
Silver will likely continue to go up by 30% per year, or more, for at least the next decade, until silver hits about $500/oz.  Why?
Because if even only 1% of US money were spent on silver, this would be about $180 billion, but only $7 billion is spent on physical silver by investors per year.  That much money, moving into such a tiny market, will push up the price tremendously.  If we assume that such investors could only buy about 300 million oz. annually, as the rest will continue to be consumed by industry, then we can calculate a good price:  $180,000 million divided by 300 million ounces of silver = $600/oz.! 
If you are a "conservationist", you should conserve silver.  You will be well rewarded, and may even be able to buy a home on Lake Tahoe afterwards, to enjoy the crystal clear waters all you want.
It's hard to argue with such rational thoughts, isn't it?  My problem is that most people don't like to admit the irrational beliefs that they cherish.
And "they" think my religion is bad!
If you think I'm full of BS, please consider making a tax free donation from $1 to $1000 to my new "keep the sun yellow" campaign.  Remember, anything you contribute will help me, no matter how small. 
I'm sure you have seen dark orange sunsets.  This could become permanent if we don't do something soon.  My theory is that pollution from the earth is rapidly spinning out of control towards the sun, tinting the color, and if left unchecked, the sun could turn black and kill us all.  We must spend billions of dollars now, to prevent this imminent disaster!  The plan, which all reputable scientists agree with, is to shoot high powered microwaves into the atmosphere to incinerate all particulates that may escape into space and ultimately collide into, pollute, and destroy the sun.