As we were driving through West Virginia the other day, we saw some of the evidence of mountain top removal. Fortunately, we did not see a lot of destroyed mountains. Yet, I know that what we saw was just the tip of the iceberg and that there is much more of this type of mining throughout the state. It's sad to see a state with so much natural beauty destroying a significant amount of it for the coal. While staying in Charleston for a night, I read an article in the local magazine about this issue being on the forefront for this year's legislative agenda in the state. Many seem in favor of mountain top removal since the state wants to exploit its natural resources for profit. Yet, I have to ask myself how well the state can sustain this practice for the sake of making money in the coal industry. This is not simply strip mining where the ground can easily be converted into some other purpose. With mountain top removal, a mountain has to be made into a golf course or some other use for which it never was intended. There just seems to be something terribly wrong with changing the terrain of a state on such a permanent basis. A mountain that has existed for centuries cannot simply be replaced. It appears that some of these destroyed mountains may never even become golf courses. Yet, perhaps it is a good thing to have a few reminders of how destructive the coal industry is rather than deluding ourselves by playing a round of golf on a former mountain.

I saw an advertisement in the Economist for the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation or NNPC. After reading about the recent pipeline blast in Nigeria and the dominance of a small few over Nigeria's large petroleum industry, I anticipated that this ad would also pertain to petroleum. I was somewhat surprised that the ad actually pertained to biofuels. According to the ad, Nigeria plans to launch a biofuel industry and Nigeria "aims at leveraging the vast agricultural potential of the country to create wealth, employment and sustainable development." Per the plan, Nigeria plans to make ethanol and biodiesel from sugarcane. The ad seeks firms to partner with the NNPC.

The prospect of a biodiesel industry in Nigeria sounds promising, but after reading the article on the pipeline blast yesterday, I question how this new industry will create wealth and who it will create wealth for. Will it create wealth for the masses, something that the petroleum industry is not doing in Nigeria? Or will it simply add wealth to the already wealthy few in Nigeria while the poor will be left with little? Will this industry permit poor farmers to be more successful by encouraging farming in less prosperous regions or will it squeeze out small farms in favor of larger farms or plantations owned by those more wealthy? Only time will tell how the biofuel industry will do in Nigeria. If it does nothing else, let's hope that it causes the thieves of the gasoline from pipelines to find something else to do, such that another tragedy like the recent explosion can be averted.

I was reading an article in the Evansville Courier & Press entitled, "Pipeline blast kills at least 260." The article, by Katharine Houreld of the Associated Press, focuses on the terrible pipeline tragedy in Nigeria. The gasoline pipeline had apparently been illegally tapped for months by thieves, who had been taking away the gasoline and selling it on the black market. According to the article, "[a] single pilfered can of gasoline sold on the black market can earn two weeks of wages for a poor Nigerian." Tapping occurs commonly in Nigeria, a country where the oil wealth is reserved for a small group, leaving most of the 130 million residents in poverty.

This article caused me to think a bit more about our gasoline consumption and our continued reliance on turbulent nations. I don't know whether we obtain oil from Nigeria. However, regardless of which countries we obtain oil from, our addiction to this commodity means that we cannot be too selective as to from where we obtain it or what the politics are in those nations. Do we totally blame the thieves for this awful explosion that killed many innocent people or do we partly blame the Nigerian government for encouraging corrupt practices due to its refusal to share the oil wealth with the masses? Why are these people so poor that they need to resort to desperate measures to sell gasoline and further jeopardize the welfare of innocent people? After all, Nigeria is a major oil exporting nation. It is easy to try to isolate our oil consumption in our minds from what goes on in the rest of the world. Yet, in reality, our demands for oil do affect the complexion of the world by allowing volatile nations to sell their goods despite their practices towards their own people. It seems to me time that we reduce this oil demand by developing our own alternative fuels, whether they be from soybeans, corn or some other source. We just need to make sure we don't burn more oil trying to manufacture the alternative fuel. Once we improve the alternative fuel market, perhaps we will be able to move away from our reliance on tumultuous nations across the world. It is unclear whether this will cure these nations' treatment of their own people, yet perhaps we will not be supporting these bad practices. If we reduce our oil demand, we will still buy some oil from across the world. The difference will be that we can insist on buying it from countries that treat their people well, as opposed to buying it from wherever we can get it due to our current oil addiction.

I received a Citizen Eco-Drive watch for Christmas. The technology of this watch involves alternative energy. It converts either natural or artificial light into energy. As the manual states, the "energy is harnessed [and then] stored in a special power reserve" to keep the watch running. It does not need a battery so long as the solar cell in the watch has sufficient light to charge it. The watch is powered, even in the dark, for at least six months after it is fully charged by the light.

After reading the manual, I pondered, once again, why other electronic devices do not simply charge on light. Why are we stuck buying, using and discarding batteries, which often contain toxic chemicals, when we could use this technology? I would love to simply direct my cell phone or other electronics towards the light when the charge gets low, as opposed to having to use electricity to re-charge the device or have to install a new battery altogether. I really hope that this technology can be a real breakthrough for the electronics industry.

I was reading an article yesterday in the Evansville Courier & Press about a third ethanol plant that is going to open in southern Indiana. There are concerns, even from the mayor of Evansville, about how these new ethanol plants may compound the area's air pollution problem. There are some issues as to how the energy for the ethanol plants will be derived. As I wrote about previously, one plant wants to burn tires for energy. Although I really believe that ethanol can be a beneficial energy source in the future, it does raise the concern of how to power these plants without fossil fuels. How do we balance our desire to start perfecting alternative energy with our desire to continue using fossil fuels? How can we generate alternative energy with other alternative energy? If we can do the latter, how do we make it cost-effective and reliable to say, make ethanol using wind or solar power? Once we generate ethanol, are we going to use this first batch of ethanol to make more? Or are we going to sell all of the ethanol and use cheaper fossil fuels, such as coal, to produce the ethanol? When considering these questions, it does make me stop and think about how alternative energy development is a work in progress. Yet, my hope is that in creating a market for ethanol, we try to go about the process in the right way, meaning that we should use ethanol to try to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. If we simply rely on fossil fuels to generate ethanol and more ethanol plants keep popping up, it doesn't seem that we are getting away from the fossil fuel reliance. We might have cleaner burning cars but in the end, we'll have more and more coal-fired power plants to create electricity and to power our ethanol plants. We might also be burning more and more tires to produce ethanol. So, in effect, we are cleaning up the air when we drive our cars and when the tires wear out on these cars, we simply burn them to make the fuel. The air pollution gain from the ethanol seems to be lost with the ultimate burning of the used tires.

I saw on Good Morning America that Santa has gone "green." According to the story, Santa's sleigh is now powered by hydrogen. I always thought that Santa's sleigh was powered simply by the reindeer's energy but apparently, there was some fossil fuel use previously.

This story seemed a little silly to me, but perhaps it is a sign of the times that even Santa is interested in alternative energy. It is too bad that all of the gifts that we have shipped throughout the country were not transported via hydrogen energy. Rather, all of the shipping entails a huge amount of gasoline being used. It seems that if we are serious about hydrogen, we should not waste time creating an image of Santa delivering presents with hydrogen; rather, we should focus on the reality that getting our gifts from point A to point B uses way too much fossil fuel.

The latest issue of the Economist has Vladimir Putin's face on the cover, with a cartoon body in a gangster outfit, holding a gas pump like a gun. The cover reads, "Don't mess with Russia." The article describes Mr. Putin's "use of energy as a weapon." According to the article, Mr. Putin believes that if he holds the control on Russian oil and gas, he can restore Russia to some of its former glory. Yet, the authoritarian approach demonstrated by Mr. Putin is backfiring already in many ways. As the article notes, Russia needs wealthier nations to help it develop its oil and gas industry and scaring other nations away in effect means less wealth for the Russian people from these resources. Some of the bullying pertains to Russia cutting off gas supplies to the Ukraine (which has a new pro-Western government). In addition, Russia scared off Royal Dutch Shell and its Japanese investors from a project to obtain oil and gas from Russia's Sakhalin Islans; Shell, Mitsui and Mitsubishi sold their interests to Gazprom, Russia's state-owned gas company. Meanwhile, when Lithuania sold an oil refinery to a Polish firm rather than a Russian one, "the pipeline that supplies the refinery with Russian oil suddenly succumbed to a mysterious technical default."

Besides the need for foreign assistance in developing its oil and gas industry, Russia also needs to be wary of dropping oil prices or money shortages, as these factors could result in Russia going to great lengths to appease the foreigners it has scared away.

This article made me realize that concerns over oil and gas supplies around the world are not limited to the Middle Eastern nations. We probably at one time had high hopes that Russia would be a friend of the United States post-Communism and would readily trade its energy resources with us. The reality is, however, that Russia is not the democratic state we had hoped for, but one where the press is being silenced, the army is chaotic, corruption is rampant, etc. It appears that we cannot depend on Russia to be a friend to share energy resources and know-how with any more than we can the other turbulent nations where oil and gas are plentiful. Maybe it is time that we focus more on what we can do on the homefront to produce energy, such as perfecting solar power, wind power and ethanol, rather than focusing so heavily on other parts of the world that use energy resources as a weapon.

I saw an article in the Evanswville Courier & Press regarding natural gas. The article, entitled, "Natural gas bottlenecks keep heating prices high," discusses how the country has large supplies of natural gas, but the prices have remained high. The problem lies in transporting the natural gas from where the plentiful supplies are, to where the gas is consumed. One of the challenges is insufficient transporation infrastructure. With more and more power plants using natural gas, along with the residential consumers, there is more demand than previously. Some analysts feel that if the volatility of natural gas prices continues, more market share may go to coal and nuclear power. In terms of supply and demand, one of the main difficulties appears to be the changing trends of where the gas comes from and where it is being used. According to the article,
[p]roduction is declining along the Gulf Coast, while rising in segments of the Southwest and the Rockies." Meanwhile, industrial consumption has shifted from the Midwest to the Northeast and Southeast.

As I read this article, I thought about how energy availability is not simply about supply. Instead, much of it depends of the availability of adequate infrastructure to transport it to where it is used. We then need to use more energy to ship the gas to where people need it. This seems to be the same dilemma that the ethanol industry faces. While more and more ethanol is being produced each year, we need an effective mode of transporting it to where it will be used. Are diesel-fueled trucks the answer? I think this negates the benefits of the ethanol being produced. There definitely seems to be a need for transportation infrastructure that will not consume huge amounts of energy. Perhaps more biodiesel or ethanol trucks could ship ethanol. In terms of natural gas, because pipelines are used, it is unclear how to get the gas where it's needed without the bottlenecks. Sufficient pipelines just don't appear to be there right now and it is unclear how to correct that in the short term.

I was reading Newsweek and saw an article called, "How Green are You?" The article mentioned threen different websites you can go to to measure the amount of carbon dioxide your lifestyle generates. I did this once on a website that Al Gore recommended; I don't recall doing that well, mainly because our electricity source is coal in this region of the country. The sites listed in the article are: terrapass.com, gocarbonzero.com and nativeenergy.com. The latter is the site listed in the Gaiam catalogue, a company that makes eco-friendly products. I ordered quite a few things from Gaiam for the holidays and one thing I think is great, is that the company allows you to negate the carbon created by shipping the products. You can pay about $5.00 extra to cover a tree being planted to help combat the carbon dioxide released from the modes of transportation that will deliver all of the holiday packages. You can buy one tree or several. Other ways to combat carbon dioxide emissions are opportunities to contribute to wind projects. The Gaiam catalogue talks about this as well, which is then discussed in more depth on the nativeenergy.com website. It seems that once the holidays hit, many of us forget the wastefulness of all of the gift packaging, shipping and throwing away of countless boxes and wrapping paper. If we take a moment to contribute to projects like the tree planting or the wind farm support, we are at least making some effort to neutralize some of this damage. For those really interested in alternative energy and the environment, planting a tree in his or her name or helping a wind farm in his or her name, could be a gift in and of itself.

I read another ethanol article in the Evansville Courier & Press this morning, written by Dirk Lammers of the Associated Press. The article entitled, "Ethanol industry growth," discusses government subsidies for ethanol and possible oversupply. Another item discussed in the article is E-10, a blend of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol. The American Coalition for Ethanol wants this to be the "norm at pumps across the country." While this mix does not seem as impressive as E-85, which uses only 15% gasoline, it may be the solution to getting the public hooked on ethanol. E-85 hasn't taken off as much as hoped, to date. According to the article, E-10 would not only ensure a market for ethanol, but it would also allow any car on the road to try a new fuel source. Every car can use E-10 without alterations to the car and "gas stations wouldn't have to make changes to store and handle it." Why not ease people into ethanol by doing this? Wouldn't this also mean that there would be less dependence of the ethanol industry on government subsidies? It would also ease dependence on foreign oil. After all, taking 10% away from gasoline with each fill-up could add up to a lot of gasoline saved. If people don't notice a difference with their vehicles' operation with the ethanol, won't this encourage say an E-15 or E-20? Perhaps we were a little too optimistic by trying to move people from total gasoline dependence to E-85. Maybe baby steps like E-10 are exactly what the ethanol industry needs right now.

I was reading about the worst wind storm in the Seattle area since 1993, in the Evansville Courier & Press. The Associated Press article noted that residents could have no power for a week, due to the downed power lines and other infrastructure damage. One million people currently have lost power. This article made me think a bit about what would happen if there were really long term power losses across the nation. Even when the power grid went down on the East coast a few years back, it didn't seem like people were out of power that long considering the circumstances. We are so dependent on our power grid that one wonders what most people would do if power losses were a month long. I'm not sure what the likelihood of this ever happening is, but it does make you think how our power grid dependence could in essence, hold our modern lifestyle hostage. Wouldn't it be great to be able to still heat your home and run basic appliances using the sun or wind, even if your home normally did use the power grid? Whenever I look at different retailer websites now, I am amazed how many of them have equipment to begin trying out solar or wind power. Why haven't I bought anything yet? Even I'm not so sure sometimes. I think it's overwhelming to know where to start. Yet, if these types of outages continue, I would bet that many more people, including me, would be more apt to try say, a solar water heater. We need to make small steps to rid ourselves of the complete power grid dependence.

I saw an article in the Evansville Courier & Press called, "Ethanol demands may squeeze farmers not consumers." The article discussed the growing corn prices due to ethanol demand. It clarified a common misconception that some people have; some think that ethanol will take food away from people. Before moving to Indiana, I didn't know the difference either between field corn that is used for livestock and ethanol and sweet corn, which is what we eat. Yet, the rising prices of the field corn can affect our diets. Higher field corn prices could mean higher prices for the meat that consumed the corn, like chicken. Although people eat chicken more than any other meat, it is expected that they will consume slightly more beef and pork next year. It sounded a little frightening that there might not be enough food for the livestock. Yet, the article does say that even after ethanol production, there are corn kernels left over that can be fed to the animals. The challenge lies in transporting all of these kernels to the livestock instead of the corn, as was done before.

This article did cause me to step back and think a bit more of some of the logistic difficulties that may result due to a sudden surge in ethanol demand. Yet, if transporting kernels instead of corn is one of the bigger obstacles, then I think we will be able to prevail and meet this challenge. Yet, it does make one realize that there may be many set-backs and challenges that go along with alternative fuel production. It is my belief though, that once the kinks are worked out, the end result will be well worth it.

I was reading Newsweek and saw an article about hydrogen vehicles. The article called, "Step on the, Er, Gas," notes that hydrogen has a negative connotation because people associate it with the Hindenburg disaster. As the article notes, the Hindenburg's downfall was likely caused by its "flammable powdered-aluminum coating." Hydrogen is actually safer to use than gasoline, notes the article, and there is one company banking on hydrogen's bright future: Honda. In 2008, Honda will unveil the hydrogen fuel-cell hybrid FCX. The article explains how the vehicle works: The car's hydrogen "is used to create power for an electric motor." The vehicle is said to accelerate and brake well and steers great. The only real noticeable difference during the writer's test drive was the silence associated with the vehicle, which many drivers would welcome. As mentioned in prior blogs, you really can't beat hydrogen from an earth-friendly emissions standpoint, since its only by-product is water. Until this vehicle is available, residents in New York and California can purchase a Honda Civic that runs on clean-burning natural gas. The latter vehicle will run a little over $25,000, while the hydrogen vehicle's price has not yet been released. $25,000+ is a little steep for a Honda Civic, but I would think that prices of these vehicles would come down as they gain popularity. I would, of course, prefer the hydrogen vehicle to one running on a fossil fuel, albeit a fairly clean one. I hope others are as excited about this prospect as I am. Judging from the cool look of this vehicle (somewhat futuristic in design and very sleek), I would guess that it will be a hit. I wonder if Leonardo DiCaprio has reserved one yet?

I accidentally deleted my post I worked on today, so I'll try to recreate it. I was reading an article in the Economist called "Glittering towers in a war zone." The article discusses an emerging metropolis in the northern region of Sudan called Khartoum (dubbed a "new Dubai"). Sudan is a country with a lot of internal conflict. It also happens to be a huge oil producer. It exports its oil to countries like China, that need more and more oil by the day to meet a growing economy's needs. The problem lies in the fact that Sudan's north wants the oil money, while the poor south is home to most of the oil supplies. The north has sent in foreign oil workers, such as Chinese workers, to tap into the supplies. Unfortunately, the south has gone largely uncompensated for the oil and the surplus oil has haphazardly been dumped around the south, often poisoning the cattle of the south's farmers. This has created more tension and resulted in violence on the part of the south towards the foreign oil workers. The country's problems are compounded by Darfur's situation in the west, where 2 million people have already been killed. Sudan's own president boldly describes the Darfur situation as exaggerated and deems Darfur an "unimportant province."

Although the U.S. has sanctions against Sudan, other countries like China and India are reluctant to express disdain against this huge oil supplier. This shows the hesitation that countries have in making a statement against human rights violations when oil is on the line. Hasn't the U.S. been known to act in a similar fashion in other instances? Our addiction to oil makes it difficult for us to separate energy needs from politics. It is hard for us to take a stand against tumultuous nations that may be harming their own people, when our oil supplies are in jeopardy. If we are able to develop more alternative fuels that actually help minimize our oil dependence, we may feel more free to face up to nations committing wrongs against their own people without worrying about our own energy needs.

I was flipping through the Economist and saw an advertisement from BASF, or "The Chemical Company." At least this company doesn't shy away from what it truly is. The ad actually raised an interesting concept about hybrids. If we have hybrid cars noted the ad, then why not hybrid homes? I was a little confused by the reference to the term "hybrid," since I always think of that to mean a mix of energy sources. Meanwhile, this use of the term seems to mean some energy use blended with techniques to avoid energy use altogether. BASF provided products for affordable housing in gritty Paterson, New Jersey. This housing, described in the ad as "Near Zero Energy," incorporates insulating foam sealants, panels and concrete forms and is 80% more energy efficient that the average home in the U.S. This type of housing makes conservation sound a whole lot easier, since most homeowners would not care about using less energy if they don't even notice the difference. Many Americans have the belief that conservation of energy means a major cramp in everyday lifestyle and simply aren't willing to take those measures. If new homes could all be this efficient, we could really take a lot of pressure off of the power grid and make a transition to alternative energy sources much easier. Judging from the photo of the energy-efficient housing, most people would probably be very excited to live in homes like this, as they are attractive as well as energy-efficient. It's smart for a company to try to change the image of conservation from one that is painful to one that is pleasant.

I was really surprised to read in the Evansville Courier & Press "Letters to the Editor" that the majority of the readers polled are against reductions in the gasoline tax. I expected, after hearing on the local news that there was discussion of lowering the gasoline tax, that most residents would be in favor of this measure, even if it only amounted to saving a few cents per fill-up. Yet, those who wrote in were staunchly against any such reduction. One reader's letter in particular caught my eye. He stated that the gas tax is actually too low, in part because it does not help cover our future needs. He noted that higher gas taxes could be used to finance alternative fuels. He further noted that higher gas taxes, as is the case in Europe, would encourage smaller vehicles and more prevalent use of public transportation.

I wholeheartedly agree with this reader's comments, although I think the gas tax would have to be very high to deter larger SUVs being purchased and to deter people from using their own vehicles in favor of public transportation. I think it is really encouraging though, that the readers of this publication, who are often against any increase in energy prices, favored the gas tax. In my mind, it makes a lot of sense to spread the funding for energy needs around by an increased gas tax, rather than try to fund it by one lump sum. If we could allocate a portion of each amount taxed at the pump to alternative energy research and development, we could make a lot of headway in this direction without too much pain to the consumer. Even if the tax was raised considerably, most consumers would probably pay it without too much resistance. Instead of waiting for the future to delve into alternative energy, we could actually do more to raise funds for it now, even while we consume fossil fuels. To me, this seems one of the most feasible ways of effecting change.

I was reading an article in the Evansville Courier & Press entitled, "Coal Crunch." The article, written by Josh Funk, of the Associated Press, discussed the record amounts of coal being transported by rail from Wyoming and Montana and the difficulty with railroads keeping up with utility companies' demands. Last year alone, coal consumption increased across the country 1.9%, up to 1.13 billion tons. These numbers are expected to be higher this year.

It was so concerning to me that we are needing more coal than ever before. Why is what I keep asking myself. With innovations being made in wind power and other forms of alternative energy, can't we ease this burden rather than compound it? Are we really using so much more energy than ever before or have we deviated from cleaner and more expensive forms of fossil fuel use, like natural gas, because coal is so much cheaper? Is it that more companies, as Alcoa is doing, are actually using more coal to run the pollution controls to clean the coal? I think the big question that should be asked is not how growing coal demand will be met but why is there a growing coal demand and how do we limit that? If we don't ask these hard questions, we are in danger of becoming even more heavily reliant on coal in the future.

I saw an article in Fortune entitled, "Raw Power," which pertains to the "Wartsila RT-flex96C 14-cylinder two-stroke low speed diesel marine engine." Luckily, the article translates this into plain English--"the most powerful internal-combustion engine ever built." After reading so much about hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles and how the internal combustion engine may someday be a thing of the past, I wondered how cutting edge this engine could be, no matter how powerful it is. Apparently, it's pretty impressive in that it powers the world's largest container vessel, called the Emma Maersk. This ship is 1,300 feet long and can travel from Shanghai to Los Angeles with 11,000 containers in a little over a week, by moving at a rate of 29 miles per hour. It sounds rather frightening when you read just how much energy this ship uses--80,080 kilowatts, which is enough to power 70,000 homes. Yet, when I really stopped to think about it, until we discontinue buying goods from overseas, which is very unlikely, we need to have an efficient means of delivering those goods. At least the ship does have some interesting ways of conserving energy. The article indicates that "exhaust is redirected to turbochargers that reuse heat to generate more electricity--saving 20 gallons of heavy diesel fuel per kilowatt produced." I found this concept of reusing heat to generate other electricity very interesting and I wondered whether it could be done in other settings, as in the home or in businesses. Another question was whether a coal-fired power plant, which produces a lot of steam, can convert some of this hot air into more power instead of the bulk of it going up through the smokestack. Sometimes we need to start small and build up with innovation but in this case, maybe the largest containership in the world can inspire a better use of power on a smaller scale.

I saw an article in the Evansville Courier & Press this morning entitled, "'Big dry' worst on record.' The article, by Rod McGuirk of the Associated Press, discusses the latest droughts in Australia, which some blame on global warming. According to the article, several areas from the east to the west coast of Australia are experiencing their driest year on record. The country's grain earnings, a result of the huge impact the drought has had on farming, are expected to be cut by 35%. Although Australia is the world's third largest exporter of wheat, only 10.5 million tons of wheat can be harvested currently, which is less than half the previous harvest. Many ranchers have resorted to selling livestock because they can't afford to feed them. The Australian government has had to increase welfare and subsidies substantially to its farmers--up to 72,000 farmers--given the grave conditions.

Although it is unclear from the article how established the link is between this drought and global warming, it certainly makes you reflect on how if global warming is a possible culprit, countries like Australia can no longer afford to ignore it. It seems like the resounding reason that the U.S. and Australia refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was that it would be too restrictive on their countries' economies. Yet, as the article notes, droughts which are possibly due to climate change can have an enormous economic significance. Is the economic gain from ignoring greenhouse gas emissions so much greater than the losses to be had from climate change? If countries like the U.S. and Australia force their industry, including the coal industry, to limit carbon dioxide emissions, are they going to be so much worse off than if they need to pay subsidies and aid to those businesses harmed by climate change, particularly farmers? I have never seen a cost-benefit analysis like this. One thing that comes to mind that might help these farmers is for them to use their farmland for alternative energy. If their land is suitable for wind power, perhaps they can lease their land for wind turbines and generate income in that manner. Another idea is for solar towers to be placed on this arid farmland, given that the company building the first large-scale solar tower is in Australia (as discussed in the "Tower of Power" article in Fortune).

It seems to me that the leaders in Australia and the U.S. need to remember that the economy means more than industry in the conventional sense. Farmers have businesses as well and ignoring global warming may present a real threat to something as fundamental as our food sources.

The latest issue of the Economist has a list of winners for its Innovation Awards. One of them is Johannes Poulsen, former chief executive of Vesta Wind Systems, "for the commercialization of wind energy." Mr. Poulsen joined Vestas, a small Danish company with 60 employees, in the 1980s. When he retired in 2002, the company "had 5,000 employees and a quarter of the world market for wind turbines." According to the article, Mr. Poulsen led Vestas in this manner, by improving the turbines' efficiency, lowering costs and making wind power more competitive with conventional power sources. I was thrilled to see this recognition in a magazine like the Economist, for someone who probably surpassed any expectations for the viability of wind power that were present in the 1980s. For all of those who say wind power is inefficient and unreliable, Mr. Poulsen is an example of someone who proved them wrong. Although wind power still has challenges, due to varying wind speeds in some regions and perhaps the effectiveness of the turbines themselves in generating power, Mr. Poulsen has brought it from more of a cottage industry to an energy source that can compete, at least in some regions, with fossil fuels. We still have a long way to go with wind power, yet my hope is that companies like Vestas will continue to market wind power in new and improved ways and make a profit in doing so. Other companies may then realize the true viability of wind power and perhaps the many missed opportunities that we have today for using it, such as very windy areas of coastline. We need more visionaries like Mr. Poulsen to help people get over their hesitation over the future of wind power.

I promise to get off the global warming kick and talk about something else soon, but I did think of climate change again last night while watching television. I was watching a program on the History Channel about volcanoes; the program discussed how much a huge eruption can have an effect on the climate. I had no idea that back in 1816 there was a volcanic eruption that resulted in huge climate effects, such as frost in Connecticut in July. At that time, the world relied on the telegraph system for global communication, so there were actual accounts transmitted that way of the impact of this eruption across the globe. I hear the argument fairly frequently from those who don't buy the global warming from human-activity concept, that volcanoes release tons of stuff into the air and therefore, past climate changes were natural. The argument goes that any future deviations in "normal" climate activity would be simply natural, as well. Yet, what I kept thinking as I watched this show was how incredible it is that we are consciously causing an effect on the planet by our greenhouse gas emissions that previously could only be achieved by a natural phenomenon like a volcano. There are still numerous active volcanoes across the earth and accordingly, I wonder, will climate change be caused by human activity or by another natural eruption, like those that have occurred in the past? It is frightening to me that we are able to rival a force like a volcano in this manner. It also concerns me that many don't believe that our constant and tremendous greenhouse gas emissions could lead to the same kind of climate change that one sudden volcanic eruption could cause. It's certainly hard to compare the gradual to the sudden forms of climate change, yet I think it's very dangerous for us to deflect the evidence of global warming from human conduct by saying that we can't duplicate a climate changing effect formerly found only in nature.

It seems like lately I have been a bit hung up on the global warming/nuclear power issue. Although I really don't like the concept of nuclear power, especially given the nuclear waste and chances for a nuclear disaster, I have been asking myself whether this is really the only way to supply large-scale power and avert climate change. I am not convinced that this is true, particularly given that nuclear power plants often are delayed in construction and overrun on cost. Yet, there is the potential as a recent article in the Economist notes ("The ghostly flickers of a new dawn"), for countries such as Australia to take advantage of uranium supplies and produce nuclear power on a large scale. In fact, Australia has 38% of the world's uranium reserves, yet has never produced nuclear power. Even its global warming-skeptic prime minister, John Howard, feels that Australia should have up to 25 reactors by 2050. Perhaps before delving into nuclear power full force, Australia should consider what other countries are now insisting upon--reactors that are said to "need no human or mechanical intervention to close after a fault." In addition, nations such as Finland are demanding reactors that can withstand a plane crash. If nations like the U.S. and Australia are going to get serious about using nuclear power, they had better consider how they are going to keep their citizens safe from human error and terrorism, an unfortunate reality in this day and age. There is probably no way to guarantee a nuclear reactor will be foolproof against leaks or explosions due to human mistakes or sabotage, yet this consideration has to come into the equation. These measures will likely add considerable cost to the already expensive nuclear reactor building process. We need to stop global warming, yet we still need to consider whether nuclear power can achieve this without exposing people to huge radiation risks and health problems due to storage of nuclear waste. In other words, we need quick action to avert climate change, yet we still need to think through whether nuclear power is the best way to achieve this goal.

I was reading the Economist's special issue, "The World in 2007." One thing I will say about the Economist, which I used to think was just a stodgy British publication--It faces head-on, the issues of global warming and climate change. I can always find at least one, if not several, articles about environmental issues, which I think is very telling about our society today. If more mainstream business publications, especially quite conservative ones, challenge the global policy on handling climate change, perhaps our world leaders will start to wake up before we are past the point of no return. The issue starts with an article by John Micklethwait entitled, "It's still down to George Bush." The article focuses on how George Bush can save his legacy. As we all know, our President has an abysmal approach to environmental policy, global warming in particular. He refused to sign the Kyoto protocol because he claimed it would be too burdensome on our businesses. Mr. Micklethwait dubs Mr. Bush the "Toxic Texan," and notes that many would probably bristle at the thought of the President suddenly confronting global warming. Yet, as the article indicates, Mr. Bush may have no choice but to do just that if he wants to be remembered as something other than a friend of greenhouse gas-emitting industries. According to the article, the American public has become more accepting in the past five years since Kyoto was rejected by the U.S., that global warming is real and that climate change will happen absent some drastic measures. As Mr. Micklethwait states, Mr. Bush has a hope (perhaps tenuous at this time) of preserving his image by finding something to replace Kyoto and setting an example for India, China, and other quickly developing (and energy hungry) nations. Given his low approval and the fact that he can not run for another re-election, Mr. Bush, as the article insists, has nothing to lose by switching gears in this manner.

I was reading an article in the Economist entitled, "How to make them feel the heat." The article addresses the snail's pace of world efforts to tackle global warming, while already vulnerable parts of the world are in danger of feeling climate changing effects sooner rather than later. A recent meeting in Nairobi reflected the relative apathy among many world leaders, as there was no agreement on what to do after the Kyoto protocol expires. According to the article, "[f]inance and foreign ministers would have been needed to cut a real deal, and hardly any of them bothered to attend the meeting." The article notes that those attending the meeting for the U.S. were defensive, those from China were "poorly represented," and India's representatives were unreceptive to suggestions for India to cap greenhouse gas emissions. While many worry about the poor in Africa and atrocities in areas like Darfur, are those in the U.S., China or India thinking about the brunt that Africa could face due to global warming? According to the article, the effects on food supplies in areas like the Horn of Africa could be "catastrophic." There may be both more droughts and more floods. African farmers are dependent on rain-fed farming. The problem lies in the fact that with climate change, animals will overgraze in pronounced dry spells, which will lead to more precious topsoil being washed away with the heavy rains.

Why do so many fail to view global warming and climate change as human rights issues? By simply going through the motions with meetings and refusing to take decisive and perhaps, drastic measures to cut greenhouse gases, we are potentially inflicting future famine on other nations that are already in a fragile state. When are we really going to get the wake up call that we can't continue our climate changing practices in the status quo manner? Instead of the U.S. simply sending aid to areas of Africa, we should be taking into account the damage that our greenhouse gas emitting practices could have on these poor countries in the future.