Over the weekend, I was thinking about the definition of "alternative energy." I wondered exactly how this was defined. Two definitions are listed for it on Dictionary.com. One is, "energy, as solar, wind or nuclear energy, that can replace or supplement traditional fossil fuel sources as coal, oil and natural gas." The other definition listed is, "energy derived from sources that do not use up natural resources or harm the environment." Apparently, however, not everyone agrees with these definitions. One case in point is a company in Indiana that wants to burn tires for energy, due to high natural gas prices. This is being billed as a form of alternative energy by some, as well as a good way to recycle used tires. Although I'm not crazy about the idea of tires clogging up landfills, I would rather have that than the air pollution due to burning tires. It also concerns me that if a permit can be granted fairly easily for one company to do this, others will want to do the same, such that they are not spending so much money on natural gas. Where can the line be drawn? If this company can do it, how will the pemitting authorities say no to others? My thought for using the tires in a better manner comes from an article I read about sidewalk materials. I believe it was in Chicago where crushed up tires were going to be used instead of concrete on certain sidewalks, which would also be easier on pedestrians' backs when they walked. This use and using crushed up tires on playgrounds or for pavers in backyards sound like great ways to keep tires out of the landfills. Burning them, however, does not sound like what whomever created the phrase "alternative energy" had in mind.