Wolfing Down Fossil Fuels

The Annual Energy Outlook from the U.S. Energy Information Administration sums up the government’s best estimates of energy trends through 2035. Buried in the projections is a seismic change in energy policy, and it’s about coal. The EIA is projecting that utilities won’t build any new coal-fired electricity plants in the United States, aside from the projects already under construction or built as “clean coal” experiments. The projections say that all our new electricity plants are expected to be either renewables like wind and solar, or natural gas (which releases about half the carbon emissions of coal).

BUT:





But if you look at the long-term projections, the amazing thing is how little the energy mix will change in 25 years. Right now, we get 84 percent of our energy from fossil fuels. In 2035, we’ll still be getting 78 percent of our energy from fossil fuels. Read the rest Here.

Earth Day 2009 - April 22nd through April 21st

By Morgantj

Boom Boom! Out Go the Lights! Earth Hour 2009

The power plant pictured below, planned to go online from a near downtown location, no longer has to thanks to an equal amount of energy SAVED through conservation alone. No noise or pollution, no resources wasted, no energy burned. Click the image to get the details, then be sure to share them with your city, county and state officials.

A Tough Week For Coal - No Clean Coal

A Tough Week for Coal

February 4, 2009, 8:44 am — Updated: 12:34 pm -->
By Tom Zeller Jr.





Protesters chained themselves to an excavator at a coal operation in West Virginia on Tuesday. (Photo: West Virginia Blue/Flickr)


The coal industry, which suffers from an image problem to begin with, has had a particularly rough few days. Without additional interpretation, we present a selection of articles, published over just the last 48 hours, from around the Web:



THE GREAT FALLS TRIBUNE
A Bad Week for Coal Plants in North-Central MontanaLast Thursday, the Air Force announced that it had rejected proposals to build a large coal-to-liquid-fuels plant at or near Malmstrom Air Force Base. Tuesday, Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission announced it is giving up on a proposed coal-fired power plant northeast of the city, at least for now.



THE CHARLESTON GAZETTE
Anti-Coal Activists Chain Themselves to Equipment at Massey OperationFourteen people were cited by State Police today in two separate protests against Massey Energy’s mountaintop removal operations in southern West Virginia.


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
W.Va. Towns With Bad Well Water Sue Coal Companies About 250 people with orange and black water in their taps are suing eight coal companies they believe poisoned wells in two southern West Virginia communities.

Click Here to read the remaining "Bad Coal Day" Headlines from the NYTimes.


Just as a reminder, There Is No Clean Coal.

The Myth of Clean Coal
The coal industry and its allies are spending more than $60 million to promote the notion that coal is clean. But so far, “clean coal” is little more than an advertising slogan.

Collapse of the Clean Coal Myth
More broadly, the authority’s recent travails may help persuade the public that coal is nowhere near as “clean” as a high-priced industry advertising campaign makes it out to be.

Even Obama has been duped,
I hope his promise to listen more to science than corporations is one he intends to keep.

Kilowatt Ours - Yours and Mine

Energy conservation. There are 3 schools of thought, generally.

• 1) Why should I give up the good life


• 2) My efforts won't contribute enough to matter


• 3) I'll do what it takes to conserve

Thanks to the 3rd group, for 30+ years of effort in designing, engineering and implementing the ideas and tools available to us today, groups 1 and 2 now have what it takes to join the effort with no reservations.

Facing energy shortages, the city of Austin purchased land at the edge of town to build a new power plant. It was necessarily close, posing health issues. It was going to be quite expensive and take longer to finish than they really had time to wait. So with research and experience from the treehuggers, nerds, geeks, enviros and offgridders the city came up with a plan. They would build a power plant that required no land clearing, no construction, no pollution. They set out to build a Conservation Power Plant. Their goal was simple in thought, logistically daunting and unprecedented. Conserve as much power through community effort as would be produced by building a new power plant. Click on the image below to see the results of their effort.

The above clip is part of a longer program, Kilowatt Ours; A Plan to Re-Energize America which aired on PBS stations over the last few months, and tonight here in the Seattle area. The documentary highlights what is hard for most Americans to grasp. There are 301 million Americans. If just one room in every home in America were lit by Energy Star lighting, it would be like removing 1 trillion pounds of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
31,500,000 kWh could be saved every year if every exit sign in America were upgraded to LED bulb. There are A LOT OF US, when each of us does a small thing it turns into huge thing, a never been done before thing. During the drought and subsequent energy shortage in California in 2001, there wasn't enough time to build new power plants to avoid the crisis. So much like other leaders before him in the face of such a crisis, the Governor asked his citizens to pitch in. Raise the thermostat to 78, unscrew 1 in 4 light bulbs... and they did. What they accomplished that summer broke world records, and set them on the path leading our country to energy independence. Below is a short clip from the program;

Some quick facts:

• In the fall of 2000 over 300 million gallons of coal slurry were spilled into the Big Sandy River in Martin County, KY. Although this ecological disaster was 30 times greater than the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, very few people outside of Kentucky hear about it.
• Visibility in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park has declined 60% over the last 60 years. (We need plants to breath, eat and drink. Plants need sunlight to grow) 83% of the visibility-reducing haze in Smoky Mountains National Park is from sulfate particulates from coal-burning power plants. The American Lung Association listed 10 southern cities in the Southeast among the top 25 most air-polluted cities in America. The EPA estimates that 33 million Americans in the Southeast alone live in bad-air areas.
• 40 of 50 states post statewide mercury advisories warning that fish are unsafe to eat.
• The Centers for Disease Control say that 1 in 10 women of childbearing age carry unsafe levels of mercury in their tissues.

• Compact fluorescent light bulbs use 20% as much electricity as a 100-watt incandescent bulb and last years longer too.

• New energy-efficient refrigerators are 40% more efficient than they were just two years ago.

• If just one room in every home in America were lit by Energy Star lighting, it would be like removing 1 trillion pounds of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

• A typical washing machine uses 1,000 kWh per year of electricity. An energy-efficient frontloading washer uses only 280 kWh.

• The city of Birmingham, Alabama, now saves $220,000 after upgrading all 700 street
intersections with LED traffic signals.

• When the Sumner County School System in Tennessee found that geothermal heating and cooling in a new school helped them save $5,000 per month on energy, they decided to retrofit every school in the county with this cost-cutting technology.

• Smith Middle School in North Carolina uses a technique called “daylighting” to flood classrooms with natural light.

• The Sullivan County School System in Tennessee finances their $24 million energy upgrade with the $1 million they save on energy every year.

• 31,500,000 kWh could be saved every year if every exit sign in America were upgraded to LED bulb.

So please, visit http://www.kilowattours.org/ and see what our efforts can accomplish. Sign up with their program to do your small part in a world changing effort, and save money along the way. Purchase the DVD or find the program airing on a local station and take the time to watch it. Contact your representatives http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml and tell them you want to see these sorts of money saving, job providing, clean earth policies in YOUR town and be sure to tell them to watch Kilowatt Ours - A Plan to Re-Energize America. For your wallet, for your health and for our security and independence, demand a Conservation Power Plant in every town across America.

McCain Not Helping Solve It - We Can!

"McCain's hoping to use gas prices as a wedge issue to win the election. That's why it's so critical that we keep spreading the message that McCain's been heavily influenced by the oil companies.When people think of Bush, they think 'oil,' but that's not true of McCain yet—even though his energy policy is almost identical to Bush's and his campaign is literally run by oil lobbyists! Check out this video from our friends at Progressive Accountability. Once you've watched, pass it on! And then please consider a donation (below) to help us spread the word."
MoveOn.org Political Action: Democracy in Action

Below is are a few things I've read on the matter:

"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant." http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

Mccain's campaign also says it will do no good; http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/18/top-mccain-adviser-offshore-drilling-will-have-no-immediate-effect-on-gas-prices/

No expert will back the BushCain claim; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/23/impossible-finding-expert_n_108692.html

They are relying on skewed polling data based on biased questions to proclaim more Americans are for drilling: http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080728/poll-truth-clean-energy-solutions-topple-drilling and http://wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/BRS-Omnibus-Poll_07-22-08.pdf

The Saudi's will pump more this year at our President's request than the entire drilling venture would contribute; http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/24/151852/447

And here's why they are so under informed; http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/25/10526/4230.

The simple reality is, drilling just will never, ever do what McCain and Bush think it will.
Here's why
http://www.theseminal.com/2008/06/18/drilling-is-a-fraud/

John McCain's Connection to Big Oil & The Enron Loopholehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdRbuUQNcxw

and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/30/62830/1353

On MSNBC Live, Andrea Mitchell discussed Sen. John McCain's call to end the moratorium on offshore oil drilling with RNC deputy chairman Frank Donatelli, but did not mention that Donatelli was a registered lobbyist for energy sector clients ExxonMobil and Dominion Resources before joining the RNC. Click here to read more... http://mediamatters.org/items/200806180004

Suppose we raised average fuel efficiency to 40 MPG by 2030; this would save us more than 5 million barrels of oil per day, 25 times as much as we would get from Senator McCain's offshore drilling. Since many cars sold today already get more than 40 MPG, this is hardly an unrealistic target. Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles in '07 http://www.dot.gov/affairs/fhwa1108.htm.

Wherever we set our targets, the simple arithmetic shows that it is far easier to have an impact on oil markets through conservation than drilling in environmentally sensitive areas.
http://www.truthout.org/article/john-mccain-wants-drill-your-toilet

An EPA email that the white house refused to open, in an attempt to stall enacting the measures recommended within, found danger to human health caused by climate change. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072403423.html?hpid=sec-health

and http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/white-house-wont-open-emails-pt2.php

Robert Kaufmann, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University, talks about the realities of offshore oil drilling, including how much oil there might be, when it would be available and what the consequences could be. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92677194

Alaska's longtime senator, Republican Ted Stevens, has been indicted by a federal grand jury as part of a continuing investigation of corruption in Alaska politics. The indictment accuses Stevens of filing false disclosure reports about his personal finances for 2001-2006, concealing more than $250,000 in home renovations that a private company paid for. That company was VECO, a multinational oil services company that has been at the center of the feds' corruption investigation since it was made public in 2007. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/feds-indict-alaska-sen-stevens.html

Testimony before Senate by Michael W Masters:

I have been successfully managing a long-short equity hedge fund for over 12 years and I have extensive contacts on Wall Street and within the hedge fund community. Itʼs important that you know that I am not currently involved in trading the commodities futures markets. I am not representing any corporate, financial, or lobby organizations. I am speaking with you today as a concerned citizen whose professional background has given me insight into a situation that I believe is negatively affecting the U.S. economy.While some in my profession might be disappointed that I am presenting this testimony to Congress, I feel that it is the right thing to do.You have asked the question “Are Institutional Investors contributing to food and energy price inflation?” And my unequivocal answer is “YES.” http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/052008Masters.pdf

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The government charged an oil trading firm Thursday with manipulating oil prices in the first complaint to be announced since the regulators began a new investigation into wrongdoings in the energy markets. http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/24/markets/cftc/

H. R. 6604
Bill to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bring greater transparency and accountability to commodity markets, and for other purposes http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6604

Please join more than one million others who know it will take all of us coming together to solve the climate crisis. http://www.wecansolveit.org/page/s/challengeremix

Obama Believes (in make believe clean kentucky coal)

"As Kentucky resident Erik Reese reported in Grist, studies in the state have found that children there suffer from 'an alarmingly high rate of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and shortness of breath -- symptoms of something called blue baby syndrome -- that can all be traced back to sedimentation and dissolved minerals that have drained from mine sites into nearby streams. Long-term effects may include liver, kidney, and spleen failure, bone damage, and cancers of the digestive tract.'" Posted by Kate Sheppard at 4:32 AM on 06 May 2008

Obama Believes in Clean Kentucky Coal

"Clean coal" typically refers to coal burned in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants with operational carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities to bury the plant's greenhouse-gas emissions underground. There are no IGCC plants in Kentucky, and no operational CCS facilities. Technically, there is no "clean Kentucky coal." Kate Sheppard

Obama Believes in Clean Kentucky Coal

"The Obama campaign has made it clear that they want no new coal plants in the meantime. Jason Grumet, a top Obama energy adviser, told Grist that "the policies we have already articulated make [coal plants without CCS] economically unrealistic."Kate Sheppard

Obama Believes in Clean Kentucky Coal

"[Obama] is confident... that his carbon cap program ... will make it absolutely ludicrous to even contemplate any type of coal, new coal, that is not 100 percent sequestered. ... if he is unable to get that carbon policy in place quickly, that he will do whatever is necessary to prevent the siting of a new generation of pulverized coal facilities, including setting [emission] standards that would be essentially a moratorium ... "Kate Sheppard

Obama Believes in Clean Kentucky Coal

Do YOU believe anything Obama says?

• NAFTA bad - To Americans, NAFTA good - To Canadians .
• Questionable relationship with Rezko verified but denied or forgotten
• His Spiritual leader, supporter of Wrights Church - until Wright hits Media, then disagrees with him and eventually disowns him.
• Tells rich white women poor folk in small towns only cling to guns and religion out of frustration, tells poor small town folk he used poor words/phrasing.
• Tells everyone 'no new coal' 'no dirty coal', then when primary hits says he is for coal despite there being none and little future for any.
  

We don't know enough about this man or the choices and decisions he would make to risk, in this current place in time, placing him in the highest office in the land. He has done nothing so far to relate that he is any different than any other politician, combine that with inexperience and it's a wonder he is on the ballot at all. In a small corner of my mind, the DNC knew this would be a blockbuster year for the D's, knew Clinton would be running, knew their key positions and most all other positions would be safe for the next term and so didn't do much more to foster other more experienced candidates. In this same corner lives the idea that the R's were just as aware of the blockbuster years coming for the D's, and so failed to foster any real candidate of their own instead choosing to try to hold the positions they had and work deals to keep some influence through the next administration.

• Do you want to stop coal until the technology is there?
• Do you want to fund solar power, with NO emissions?
• Do you want to decrease personal income tax (20-50% currently) and increase capital gains tax (10-18% currently)?
• Do you want to bust up the corporate headlock on our government?
• Do you want support to go into our government agencies and have TRUTH and FACTS and JUSTICE come out?
• Do you want to use negotiators and treaties with foreign governments and use the military to protect us AT HOME?
• Do you want penalties on US companies that ship jobs to other countries?
• Do you want warrantless searches and unlawful detainment ended?
• Do you want food, water and products to be inspected and safe?

There is only one way to ensure these things happen, and that is to vote for the man who has been trying to make these things happen for most of his life, virtually on his own. With Lincolnesque determination he has stood against lawsuits, name calling, media slander and 'The Man' and still he stands to fight the good fight. Really.

Higher Energy Costs? Yes, Controllable? YES!

Higher Energy costs from Climate bills
April 29, 2008 - 7:06pm
By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer

"WASHINGTON (AP) - People will be paying higher energy prices under a Senate bill to limit greenhouse gases, but how much will depend on how well the country can shift away from burning fossil fuels, an Energy Department analysis said Tuesday.
The Energy Information Administration said annual energy costs could increase on average of as little as $30 or as much as 10 times that much by 2020. The projected cost increases per household ranged from $76 a year more to as much as $723 a year more by 2030.
The agency said the difference depends on how successful the country will be in replacing significant amounts of energy production from coal and oil to nuclear power as well as solar and wind energy, and how successfully it adopts conservation measures.

Overall, the report said the U.S. economy will continue to grow, but at a lower pace.""


Of course energy prices are going to go up, when was the last time they went down? Things are uncertain enough, ixnay on the aresca actictsta eh? I've seen the price of oil in my lifetime go from about $15 to what we see today, with some pretty big swings noted, but the price of the end product really never seems to go down all that much for all that long. Everything goes up in price over time, now that we've resigned ourselves to that, it's time to move on to 'Controlling' the increase.

The first best way, in my opinion, is for people to own the energy plants. Energy is just something that shouldn't be speculated on, and subject to the corporate "what is best for the shareholders" credo, it's far too integral and important to the big picture for that, as Enron and various other energy scams have taught us recently. States, counties, cities and towns should be the owners of the energy plants. Private homeowners and commercial building owners should adopt forms of energy productions, probably passive, and source the extra back into the system for credits. With local public funding and oversight, fundamental energy sources can be implemented with a focus on efficient, sustainable, dependable practices.

Local governments already have the inter-communication necessary to share pertinent project information, especially important in keeping costs down when developing new technologies. Local governments are 'Tops' when it comes to any grant available for local energy projects, especially alternative energy projects. Local governments employ local people, returning the monies we pay out in taxes to the project back to the community (back to US). Local governments that set up public utilities are mandated to act in the communities good, and would not be profit driven, keeping cost increases level with the economy, not the whim of the market (or of a couple of guys on the phone in a foul mood).

Here are some examples of local success in alternative energy:

Wind Power Produces 123% of Residential Energy Demand in Rock Port, Missouri

"Small Wind" power plants blowing strong

Searsburg Wind Power facility A limited success story, but invaluable research and experience have come from this project as well as some unexpected benefits.

Nevada's Solar One Plant

Sacramento Municipal Utility Districts Photovoltaic program. Participating customers to pay an additional $4 per month to have SMUD install a 2-4 kilowatt (kW) solar array on their rooftops. This additional cost covered only a portion of the cost of the PV systems. The remaining costs were spread across the entire customer base of SMUD.

Now imagine instead of foreign or mega-corporation ownership, that you and your neighbors own these new plants.

Rep. Leonard Boswell Forced to State the Obvious

Today Rep. Leonard Boswell of Iowa was forced to state the obvious in response to a statement from Rep. Don Young of Alaska, who complains that proposed changes to the small business innovative research (SBIR) and the small business technology transfer (SBTT) programs will make meaningful research into drilling for oil on American soil tougher for the multi billion dollar oil companies. Mr. Young goes on to say that not enough power is produced by alternative energies to handle demand, and that if they'd had the backing they needed they would have the systems in place so that OPEC couldn't raise the rates as they are doing now. He admits that people want wind and solar power, and agrees he wants them too, but immediately moves back to our dependence on fossil fuels (oil) and says small business can only go forth by abandoning 'pie in the sky' ideas (alternative energy, presumably) because 'the oil is there'. According to him, the power to run small business will not be available because 'we have not kept up the power in other areas'. He blames this on our not developing nuclear, which he advocates. We haven't developed hydro (which he also advocates). He also mentions in a small voice 'a little wind and a little solar' but says we have to address reasonable price power and calls on representatives from both sides of the isle (oil) wherever there are fossil fuels to end the restrictions and begin processing cheap energy.
Rep Nydia Velazquez returns for a moment to comment on Mr. Young's statements, taking the time to remind him that when he had the opportunity to vote against price gouging he voted no, and when he had a chance to vote about long term alternative energy and conservation he also voted no. After refocusing our attention on the matter, HR5819, and thanking the members who contributed to it's efforts Rep. Velazquez yields back her remaining time on the floor.
Rep. Boswell rises to address issues related to his proposed amendment with Rep. Sutton of Ohio. This amendment will steer monies from the SBIR and SBBT programs to areas that have (or will) lose jobs from closing factories and manufacturing plants. "These programs will help small business in these areas create new, high quality jobs in areas hard hit by pressures of globalization and current trade policies." He cites Maytag as an example, while the Newton economy has not yet recovered from this blow, part of the former Maytag building is in the process of being occupied by a new company that makes components for wind turbines, he says.

"This is a step toward more energy, in response to the gentleman from Alaska. This amendment will help revitalize economies of communities like Newton and thousands of others across the United States."

The point I think, and it may be too 'un-political' to state it quite so obviously, Is that A) The oil and other major fossil fuel companies have known of our predicament for quite some time, have known the direction the country and in fact the world has been taking over the past 2 decades with regards to oil and fossil fuel and alternative energies and have chosen to not move themselves in our direction. B) The time to defend the subsidies, special tax designations and research & development grants is long over. The public funding opportunities to these giant corporations, NOW to try and fund oil friendly technology, is very definitely over.
If a free market is what you want, then you have your answer. We want wind, solar, bio-diesel from non-food crops and anything else you can think of besides oil. We were willing to fund your research for new, clean technologies to locate, pump, refine and deliver oil. In 20 years and countless millions (billions?) of public dollars there is still not a clean ,safe enough plan to convince us that destroying a unique and priceless wilderness is worth it. We are no longer willing to hear your pleas in this area, there are companies waiting in line to take our money for a product we approve of. They will provide new jobs for our workers, new power for our cities and a new pride for our country.

I'd like to provide another example to the Representative from Alaska:
Wind Power Produces 123% of Residential Energy Demand in Rock Port, Missouri

Yes, that means the town produces ALL of it's required power AND sells 23% of it back at a profit.

Conclusion on Searching for Oil, Corporations and Subsidies

I think it is a conclusion that we are not ever going to find enough oil outside of the middle east to avoid buying from the region. It is also a conclusion that Americans, even the world, are ready for and demanding alternative energy. It makes sense to me in light of these conclusions that all monies currently being spent on locating and retrieving new sources of oil by companies with - A) shareholders {in that shareholders are Americans or stakeholders in America, either as corporation or individual, and if a thing is of benefit or detriment to Americans it is of benefit or detriment to shareholders} B) Special US tax status OR receives US subsidies - should immediately be shifted away from these endeavors and either moved to alternative energy systems and production or to other non-oil related endeavors. In the case of subsidies, special tax status' and such these will be reworded to exclude oil, and cease to be assigned or assessed to any company continuing work in new oil fields location or recovery methods on any level.

As we get closer to filling our oil needs outside the middle east, the higher oil prices from these countries become as they will try to get in their perceived 'final profits'. As Venezuela is teaching us, no other country is going to allow us to plunder and pillage their lands and resources without a price, and there is no reason to believe they would settle for any less a price than their competitors are charging. I liken the strategy of the US oil companies to that of the electronic gadget market. They hold many new technologies back, releasing small improvements in 'versions' once or twice a year to maximize the sales on any given new item.

I will be very happy for the day (soon to come) when ALL subsidies to the big oil companies are dismissed. I pray for the day major corporations such as these with huge effects on our economy as a whole are by law restructured and regulated to operate in the public good. Further I believe that if utilities, energy suppliers and producers are allowed to become publicly traded they need special rules, instructions and designations to operate under the presumption that these are not 'profit' driven corporations, they are public driven and since shareholders are Americans or stakeholders in America, either as corporation or individual, and if a thing is of benefit or detriment to Americans it is of benefit or detriment to shareholders. Utility share investments should be considered stable ones moving up and down with the US economy, not one to be speculated on or manipulated.

Here is a fine example of the craziness of which I speak

" The companies aim to spend $600 million to hold an open season, or solicitation for customers to make long-term commitments to use the pipeline, before the end of 2010. After that, the companies would seek certification from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Canada's National Energy Board and then begin construction on the project, estimated to cost $20 billion to $40 billion."

Yes, you read that right. They are planning on spending $600 million dollars BEFORE even seeking certification from the Regulatory Commission or the National Energy Board. This is exactly the sort of clumsy speculation that must be addressed.

Oil Executives Defend Profits to Congress : NPR

"Don't blame us," oil industry chiefs told a skeptical Congress.
Top executives of the country's five biggest oil companies said Tuesday they know record fuel prices are hurting people, but they argued it's not their fault and their huge profits are in line with other industries.


This is right up there with Mccain's "I don't care about the people and I don't know much about the economy but have Mr Greenspan's book", and Cheney's 'who care's what the American people think'.... Huh, I wonder how THAT Happened?!

Defining 'Change': Ralph Nader about his Presidential platform on Energy and the Environment

An interview with Ralph Nader about his Presidential platform on Energy and the Environment
By Amanda Griscom Little, Grist Feature 19 Mar 2008:

"Going forward, what sets your environmental platform apart from the other candidates'?


I'm basically promoting a massive conversion from a hydrocarbon-based economy to a carbohydrate-based economy. I'm not talking about corn ethanol, which has a very poor net energy- and water-usage characteristic. I'm talking about industrial hemp. I'm talking about plant life that can be efficiently converted to fuel -- like sugar cane, agricultural waste, cellulosic grasses, and certain kinds of biomass that can be grown with a spectacular ratio of energy inputs to outputs. I'm talking about a very fundamental remodeling of our economy -- a conversion from industrial-age, 19th-century technologies like the internal combustion engine to renewable, sustainable technologies of efficiency and production. We should have vehicles that get well over 100 miles per gallon. As Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken have shown, we can create far greater efficiencies in the use of our natural resources, whether it's copper, iron, oil, gas, timber, you name it."


These are the kind of bold words that define the kind of change we as a nation are looking for. We've all known for a long time now that someone is going to need step up and admit out loud and accept responsibility for initiating what must be done. It is a daunting task, but one that will reap the best benefits for our country's overall health, sustainability and national morale.
The major corporations that could have been, over the past 10 years or so, preparing for this day by developing many already proven technologies have instead spent their time purposefully not doing this sometimes going so far as to purchase patents just to set them on shelves. There is still time for these companies to jump on board, if not make way for the new companies willing to fill the need. The money will shift, there will be new 'major corporations', the jobs will remain and life in the US will move along without them, a victim of the very consumer driven economy they helped to create.

Please click on the title to read the complete interview with Mr. Nader

03/20/08 EDIT
A couple of links that will not only support Ralph's plan, but offer interactive models and scenarios that you can check out yourself :

http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/

http://www.climate.yale.edu/seeforyourself/