I was reading an article in the Economist entitled, "Waking up and catching up." It discusses America's new embracing of environmentalism, as reflected by some of the changes in Congress. For one, Barbara Boxer, who wants decisive action on climate change, has taken over the Senate Environment Committee, from James Inhofe, who has been quoted as saying that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people." Finally, we at least have removed a powerful Senator who wanted to perpetuate the fabricated debate over global warming. The House of Representatives has already passed a bill to eliminate tax breaks for oil production in the U.S. In addition, penalties will be assessed against "firms that refuse to renegotiate the absurdly generous leases the government accidentally granted them in the late 1990s." The article notes that these proceeds could reach $15 billion and would be used to promote alternative energy. This is exactly what the alternative energy market needs to boost its development and technology. It's funny how quickly things can turn around in the energy world when people put their minds to it. Yet, what seems to be the most uphill battle is getting some real global warming legislation passed, to reduce carbon emissions. There are three proposals already on the table, yet there are also filibusters, like Jame Inholfe, waiting in the wings. We all know that even if any of these bills pass through Congress, our current President could use his veto power. Despite his split-second mention of global warming in his recent speech, I see this veto being issued in a flash as well. Let's hope that our next President will be in agreement with these progressive members of Congress as to boosting alternative energy and trying to combat global warming. I'm starting to wish Arnold Schwarzenegger was eligible to run for President.

As I was watching Good Morning America this morning, there was a discussion of global warming. Apparently, a group of 500 scientists will be meeting in Paris in the near future to announce their findings as to how imminent global warming's ramfications truly are. The frightening part of it is that these scientists see major changes occurring not in 100 years but rather, in as soon as 10 years. This includes more violent storms, worse heatwaves and droughts, and more areas of the world becoming flooded. Indonesia could have as many as 2,000 of its islands submerged in water in the coming years. Another segment on the show discussed how Henry Waxman is pursuing through Congress, whether the Bush Administration undermined scientists' efforts to get the word out to the public regarding global warming. To me, that seems pretty evident, given the number of Americans who still think global warming is open to huge debate and that it may not even exist. One local weatherman expressed those very views a week or so ago. I was astounded that anyone forecasting the weather, and who is supposed to possess more knowledge than the general public on weather and climate issues, would be so ignorant. This fabricated controversy is simply a red herring, to divert the public from this huge threat. As many in the Bush Administration and in large industries greatly fear, if global warming and climate change are settled matters in terms of their legitimacy and true existence, we might actually have to take radical measures to try to avoid that grim outcome. While I don't claim to know what goes on behind closed doors at the White House, one has to wonder how serious an administration is with regard to these threats, when the terms "global warming" were mentioned and then moved away from in about 3 seconds during the recent State of the Union address.

You know things are bad when scientists are looking for ways to throw giant mirrors into space, to try and deflect the sun's rays away from the earth and thereby, reduce the earth's temperature. It sounds like the SciFi channel, but it was discussed on ABC. What's even more frightening is that I can see certain people grasping on to this mirror research and thinking that it's the magic cure to global warming. The problem is that by the time this mirror technology were perfected (if ever), we'd probably already be in a climate change nightmare. If the mirrors failed, then we might have missed all of our chances to avert global warming.

Perhaps my big excitement over the farm methane for ethanol production was a bit misguided, as a friend pointed out. He stated that these are not family farms but rather, industrial farms, where too many animals are bred in one place, such that there is lots of manure to go around. These factory-type farms can lead to lots of bacteria and pollutants entering the surrounding land and waterways. Apparently, our governor in Indiana is excited about this prospect, so maybe I should be careful what I wish for. I still think that in theory, this kind of operation could work well and not be the worst case scenario. That would probably be the case if more family-run farms were able to benefit from the methane market. Yet, this begs the question of whether family farms can produce enough methane to power an entire ethanol plant, or whether these huge industrial farms are the only way to go. If the latter is the case, then I would not be so eager to embrace this prospect. Is burning tires for energy a better way to go? It's hard to believe that we might have to weigh those two options in order to obtain cost-effective power for some of these ethanol plants.

I was reading an article in the Evansville Courier & Press by Nate Jenkins. It was entitled, "Cow-powered ethanol plants?" The article discusses how some ethanol plants in the Midwest, such as one in Mead, Nebraska, plans to use methane from cow manure to provide the energy for an ethanol plant. This not only solves a dilemma of where to obtain energy needed to produce ethanol but also, it minimizes the amount of methane entering the atmosphere and aggravating the greenhouse effect.

As I read this brief but powerful article, I thought about what is occurring in Southern Indiana. There is a great deal of excitement on the part of many as to the future of ethanol for the state. Yet, it seems that those in charge of producing this ethanol and financing the ethanol plants, have not thought through how to obtain the energy to make the ethanol. Instead of looking at methane as a power source, some are stooping to burning tires, which just exacerbates environmental problems. I only wish that those producing the ethanol around here would have the same idea that those in Nebraska, Kansas and other states are having, which is to use methane from the many neighboring farms to power these plants. I am not aware of any ethanol plants in our area even exploring the possibilty of locating near a cattle feedlot. This seems like such a wasted opportunity and not just from the power perspective. The article notes that the cattle eat the wet distiller's grain that is a by-product of the ethanol production. It appears that we could not only be doing a better job from an environmental perspective but also, we could be feeding our cows better, as well. Instead of having to buy so much animal feed, cattle farmers could use this by-product and perhaps, improve their bottom line as well.

As I was reading more of my latest Business 2.0, I saw a blurb about home hydrogen filling stations. The article starts off, "What could be cooler--or greener--than a hydrogen car in your driveway?" If you are wondering what the answer is...."Try a solar-powered hydrogen fueling station in your garage." Once again, it seems the Australians are coming to the rescue in terms of optimizing the use of solar power. Scientists in Melbourne have created a prototype fueling station, which is a file-cabinet size and operates "on electricity generated by standard-issue rooftop solar panels." The initial version of this fueling station will allow a car to run 100 miles with no greenhouse emissions. Such a device may eventually sell for $500.00, which sounds pretty appealing. Certainly, the 100 mile range would allow trips to and from work or the store on a regular basis, but not cross-country roadtrips, as the article discusses.

The article discusses the problems that hydrogen production faces if these home units are not available. If a person could only fuel a hydrogen vehicle at a fuel station, there would be two major problems. For one, "today most hydrogen is produced by burning fossil fuels to create hydrogen gas...." Am I the only one who didn't know that hydrogen is not always a renewable source? Second, hydrogen stations would require national networks of pipelines. With the home fueling station, an electrolyzer is used, which is like a "fuel cell in reverse." An electric current from solar panels or even a home wind turbine, would separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. After that, the hydrogen is compressed, stored and is ready for use in a vehicle.

Wouldn't it be amazing if we could have a fueling station in our garage next to our tools, bikes, etc.? There would be no more fear about not making it from home to the gas station in time, when the car is on "E." Further, it sounds like after the device and the solar panels are set up, the fuel would basically be free, since water would be the resource needed to make the hydrogen. We could then smile when oil prices rise, or at least, not be as upset as we are now when we have to fill our cars with gas when prices are elevated.

I was reading an article in Business 2.0 about a company called Southwest Windpower, which is making wind turbines available to households. Southwest Windpower has created the Skystream 3.7, which is "a sleek 33-foot turbine with 6-foot blades that can work at wind speeds as low as 9 mph (and provide as much as 80 percent of the average household's electricity)." They cost about $13,000.00 each, but they are selling well. The article notes that if the new Congress provides a tax credit of up to 30% of a turbine, these turbines may become even more popular. Certain states, like California, New Jersey and New York already provide tax incentives or rebates for wind power use. According to the article, consumers can even sell excess power to certain utilities. Other companies are capitalizing on this concept by creating batteries that can store excess wind energy for days.

I was excited to read that wind power is finally reaching the point of being accessible to the masses. $13,000.00 seems like a reasonable sum when you could potentially be taking your home off the power grid for good. In addition, you would have the peace of mind of not being a major contributer to global warming. I'll be following Southwest Windpower to see how this concept develops over the next few years. Southwest Windpower's product certainly seems to defy the theory that you need tremendous wind to make wind power worthwhile, given that it can operate at low wind speeds.

I was feeding my son last night as I watched the President's State of the Union address. My four year old daughter then asked me who the President was and when I tried to explain, she asked, "What does he do that is so exciting and special?" I was somewhat at a loss for words, as I tried to keep watching the speech. When the President addressed energy issues, I was glad to hear that he wants to reduce oil usage by 20%, in ten years. Yet, what followed that seemed so superficial. I started to wonder how genuine his commitment to making this happen, truly is. I think he has some real concern about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, yet his own opportunities to make this a reality in the past were somewhat passed up. When he could have really cracked down on minimum gas mileage requirements to make them far superior to what we had in say, the 1970s, he didn't do it. In addition, I've never seen any press about him checking out hybrid or hydrogen vehicles or showing any real excitement over alternative fuel vehicles. Shouldn't he be doing this to show that he is not only a product of the oil industry from which he is rooted? Further, he needs to encourage the funding of alternative energy companies on a much wider basis. After all, he can talk about ethanol from wood chips, corn, etc., yet the reality is we may simply not have enough of it to allow the 20% reduction in oil consumption. I believe that he should be trying to obtain and perfect the hydrogen technology for our nation, as quickly as possible. Why not take a trip to Iceland where most of their vehicles operate on hydrogen? This would demonstrate a real commitment to changing our ways as far as oil is concerned.

As I continued to listen to the speech, I heard his one isolated comment about climate change. I then thought I missed something as I continued to feed my son, because all of a sudden the speech shifted to Iraq. Iraq is a topic that needs more time than the entire speech duration allowed. Yet, global warming should not get short shrift by having about ten seconds allocated to it. How can the President be serious about forestalling climate change when he said absolutely nothing about plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions? Is he planning to put off discussions of how to do this for another day, since it does not seem that pertinent? If all he's planning to do is hope for industry to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gases, then the global warming threat will not cease. Rather, it will become more and more of a reality. Why is the President not seeing the urgency of this issue when companies like Duke Energy and Alcoa are actually asking the federal government to take action on this issue? It seems a bit ironic. Hopefully, our Congress will take the action that the President is hesitating to precipitate.

If the President actually took some serious and calculated measures to decrease our oil dependence and to combat global warming, I would have a great answer to my daughter's question as to what he has done that is exciting and special.

I was watching "Living with Ed" the other night on HGTV. It is a very funny show and it is quite informative, since Ed takes environmentalism about as far as I've seen anyone take it. The episode on Sunday showed his wife wanting to remodel their kitchen, with new countertops. Instead of using a something like Corian or laminate or something more natural, like stone, they opted for a new product integrating glass mosaics into the countertop. These countertops were so beautiful and they were made with recycled glass bottles. The person selling them the countertop told them that for their kitchen, 1,000 glass bottles would be used for the countertop. The countertops came in an array of color combinations.

If we are thinking about renewable energy, then this show provides a wealth of ideas of how to make your home less harmful to the environment and less energy intensive. The glass countertops are a great example of a beautiful product that does not involves stone quarrying or the use of tons of chemicals for a man-made product. If there is more demand for recycled products for housewares and home remodeling needs, there will be less energy spent on mining for minerals or stone or making items from scratch. I only wish I knew about these countertops before we built our home, since I would love to have them.

I was thinking about President Bush's speech tomorrow night and have heard that he plans to revisit the whole addiction to oil theme he raised a year or so ago. One article I read in the Evansville Courier & Press noted that President Bush will probably give lip service to the whole alternative energy concept, by stating we need more ethanol and nuclear power. Yet, President Bush has actually cut back funding for alternative energy development in the past few years. In addition, he opposes mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions and he took a weak stance as to gas mileage requirements for vehicles. Can he really be serious about decreasing our dependence on foreign oil when he is opposed to limits on greenhouse gas emissions created in part by oil refineries and against requiring improvements for gas mileage in gas guzzling vehicles? In addition, how will alternative energy take off in this country if funding for research into these sources is cut off or limited? As much as some of us want to believe that President Bush can separate his conduct as leader of our nation from his private interests in the oil industry, it is becoming increasingly harder to feel this way. It is high time that we force the hand of automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles. In addition, we must properly fund research into hydrogen and other alternative sources to run our vehicles. Further, we must take radical measures against climate change and not the wait-and-see approach that our leader seems to be advocating. He can talk all he wants about reducing our addiction to oil, yet his support of the oil industry and refusal to fully focus on alternative energy shows how he really feels.

I have to admit that I am confused about the whole biomass concept of burning wood for energy. How does this process differ from the wood boiler situation, other than being on a much grander scale and making power for a grid rather than one residence? I read an article yesterday on Yahoo news entitled, "Fire dangers fuel trees-for-fuels plans." According to this article, a company called Rough & Ready Lumber is entering the energy business by building a $5 million plant to burn logging debris and generate electricity for a regional power grid. The article notes that biomass projects help limit forest fires and insect infestations, because they will finance forest thinnings. Per the article, forests have to be thinned to deter widespread forest fires and eliminate bug infestations. This promotes the health of the remainder of the forest. Biomass plants need to be located near the trees, the transmission lines and the mills for use of the excess steam. The article does not say what the excess steam is used for, but I assume the mills use it for additional energy. Some deterrents to biomass plants are less tax credits than those provided for wind and solar power, as well as an absence of long-term contracts from the Forest Service for forest thinning. There is currently only one such contract.

I suppose the biomass concept is a good one. After all, trees do grow back, so they are a source of renewable energy if used wisely. Also, much of this excess wood and trimmings were previously wasted, so why not use them? Further, these projects can help foster the health of the remainder of the forest by serving as a source of funds for thinning work. Yet, I still have to hesitate and question how much pollution is created with these projects. Wouldn't a lot of particulates be created with this burning? In addition, isn't there a risk that lumber companies will want to burn more and more wood to create energy thereby putting this first and forest conservation, second? Moreover, why should biomass receive equal tax credits as wind and solar power, when the latter generate no pollution to produce energy? It seems that wind and solar power should still be favored. Nevertheless, if done wisely, there does appear to be room for use of biomass for power. It still beats burning coal and oil.

I was reading an article on-line about how several cities in Montana will not be compliance with new air quality standards. I was somewhat taken aback by this, as it is hard to believe that Montana would have poor air quality given that it does not appear to be overly industrialized and it has an image of having clean, open spaces. Yet, when I read the article further, I learned that one of the culprits is wood boilers that some residents use for heating homes (or perhaps, businesses).

Once upon a time, these boilers might have been okay in areas that did not have good access to infrastructure needed to provide heat. With these boilers, a rural home could generate its own heat and be somewhat self-sufficient. When I first heard about such boilers I thought, how bad can they be? After all, we burn wood in fireplaces and no one complains? Also, isn't wood at least a natural substance to burn? Yet, after encountering one of these boilers, I realize now why many places are banning them, including Vanderburgh County, where Evansville, Indiana sits. These boilers create a lot of smoke and consequently, particulate matter. I see a home on my drive each day, which is in Warrick County, Indiana, adjacent to Vanderburgh County. Warrick does not have a ban on these boilers. You can see and smell the smoke from this one boiler all the way down the road. I can only imagine what particulate matter this one boiler generates and how if every home in the area used the same type of heat source, we'd have even worse air pollution problems.

In my opinion, these boilers should be completely banned, except perhaps in the very most remote places. Yet, I still wonder whether I am being hypocritical. This home is, after all, self-sufficient for heat and is not relying on coal or natural gas to do the trick. Isn't it good that it is using a renewable resource--wood--for heat, rather than an exhaustible fossil fuel? Unless we heat our own homes with solar power, are we being disingenous by saying that this home is dirtying the air to make heat? People burn campfires all the time and no one has a problem with that, so what makes this home's use of wood so bad? Yet, after considering this issue further, I still feel that these boilers should be banned, since the amount of smoke and particulates generated in a residential neighborhood are just too great. Why should the families next door have to deal with this? While all homes create some pollution when fossil fuels are used for heat, the effect on neighboring homes is nothing like it is when a wood boiler is used. However, with this debate, I have to remember that the lesser of the two evils is one thing, but no home is really heating cleanly unless a truly pollution-free source like the sun is being used. On a day like today, when there is not a cloud in the sky, I still wonder why all of this solar power is just going to waste.

I was reading on Yahoo about Gazprom, Russia's energy giant. The article stated that Gazprom export revenues have soared by 43% in the past year. Yet, this type of power and control over the energy market has some analysts worried. As I've discussed before, when Russia gets angry at other nations, all it has to do to show its discontent is to cut off gas supplies, as it has done to Germany, Belarus and Georgia before. Some believe that Russia is using Gazprom as a foreign policy tool to throw its weight around Europe and control neighboring nations. There are concerns that Gazprom's supplies are not secure, since the exporting of these supplies seeems to be cut off by Russia at will. In addition, Gazprom is eliminating competition by gobbling up other smaller energy companies.

This article in Yahoo seemed to dovetail with the article I read in the Economist about Russia's use of its energy wealth. Unless fossil fuel-poor nations can figure out a way to be more independent, they are likely going to remain the pawns of Russia. A huge pipeline to the Middle East that avoids Russia entirely is one idea, as the Economist article mentioned, yet this sounds complicated and expensive to implement. Further, is Russia simply going to lie down and let this happen without any repercussions to other European nations? Won't these nations feel the brunt of Russia's displeasure with them while this pipeline infrastructure is being built? What will Europe do for energy in this interim? Averting reliance on Russia for energy seems a wise move for most of Europe, but it appears that these nations should be looking within their countries for as much in the way of resources as they can. By accessing wind and solar power, these nations could have at least a back-up if Russian gas supplies dry up or if Russia retaliates while a pipeline to the Middle East is constructed. Eventually, perhaps these alternative energy sources will become such as strong industry in these nations, that they won't need to look beyond their own borders for energy. With the way Russia is behaving in using Gazprom as a weapon, it seems best to keep ties as minimal as possible.

I read an article in the Economist regarding European energy entitled, "Do you want Putin's paw on the pipe?" The article discusses Europe's vulnerability given its growing energy needs and utility monopolies which keep prices high. According to the article, monopolies do not like conditions conducive to making energy into a commodity. Rather, they "like energy islands, which allow them to extract premium prices from consumers." This is because these monopolies do not invest in interconnector technology to route energy from plentiful locales to places where energy is scarce and expensive. Germany even has difficulty obtaining gas from Holland, which is right next-door. Germany's situation has become even more precarious because of the close ties it has forged with Russia, which has simply cut off gas off when it has felt like it. As the article notes, "Moscow is reliable only when it wants to be." The European Commission hopes that EU money can be used to improve infrastructure for "interconnecting pipelines and power lines" so that electricity can flow between many European nations such as Germany and Poland. The European Commission also advocates a diversity of supply, such as pipelines connecting to the Middle East and bypassing Russia. The article advocates a free market in Europe for energy rather than these utility monopolies.

While I agree with the gist of the article that monopolies seem like a bad idea in the energy world, I wish that the article addressed alternative energy. I wondered after reading the article how the European Commission views the use of alternative energy across Europe. Countries such as Spain are bigger than the U.S. in the production of wind energy. If other nations in Europe have followed suit, in terms of using wind and solar power, perhaps their need to rely on Russia or other nations exporting gas to them, could be reduced. Another question I have as to have these monopolies treat investments in alternative energy. Are they exploring them or trying to take control of these markets? If not, perhaps this leaves another window open for other companies to enter the energy market.

Currently in Indiana, there is discussion about what rule may be adopted to limit mercury emissions from power plants. Indiana is the fourth highest emitter of mercury in the country. Even though several other states are working towards a 90% reduction in mercury emissions, many in Indiana simply want to stay with the federal plan, which would reduce mercury only by 66%. It seems pretty much common knowledge that mercury is a toxin and that eating large amounts of fish containing it can cause health problems, such as decreased I.Q., particularly in children. In our generation of power using coal-fired power plants, have we forgotten that we are emitting tremendous amounts of this toxin that make our fish unsafe to eat? Mercury is known to deposit in waterways and travel up the food chain. Why is a less than 90% reduction acceptable to so many, knowing that this toxin can affect our children's mental development?

Mercury is an example of a very negative by-product of cheap coal power. Many modern pollution controls do little to control mercury emissions and as such, utilities cannot say that scrubbers make coal clean. If we are going to continue our use of coal, even in the short term, utilities should be forced to take measures to reduce mercury by 90%. Contrary to what some utilities represent, these reductions can be achieved with certain devices without a huge cost burden being passed onto the consumer. In my mind, resistance to the use of alternative energy should not mean that fossil fuels can be consumed as they have been in the past. In other words, even our rather archaic use of coal needs to be brought into the 21st century to limit the emissions and consequent health problems to the public.

I was watching "Living with Ed" last night on HGTV. It is a show about Ed Begley, Jr., whose is an active environmentalist, and his wife, who is not as much into it. There was a segment in the show where Ed met up with Jay Leno to see the latter's car collection. It was amazing to see some of his vehicles from the early 1900s that were way ahead of their time. One of the vehicles was from about 1910 and Jay noted that it passes current emissions standards. He noted that the car recycles the steam generated from the combustion in the engine to produce more power, so that there are very few emissions. Jay also had electric hybrid vehicles from the early part of the 20th century. After watching this segement, it was so hard for me to believe that hybrid vehicles are just now catching on in the 21st century. It makes me wonder where the technology fell apart in the middle part to the latter part of the 20th century, in terms of hybrids and more fuel-efficient vehicles. Why was there the foresight to manufacture vehicles that were fuel-efficient and created minimal emissions before global warming was even a phrase, while today there is often so much resistance to doing away with the gas guzzlers? Maybe the technology was always there but the car manufacturers did not see the consumers caring about it. After all, station wagons and then SUVs were the big sellers for many years and even today, many consumers will not buy anything other than an SUV.

In the show, Jay Leno mentioned that he is going to have hydrogen fuel cell technology where he houses his car collection. Perhaps with some star power like his, the world of vehicles run on alternative energy will really start to take off. It appears that his classic car collection provided him with the inspiration for exploring alternative energy in newer vehicles. Hopefully, Jay Leno's hydrogen work with spawn a new trend towards hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

I was reading the latest issue of Forbes for inspiration for the blog. I was ready to throw it aside when I reached the last page, which is entitled, "Thoughts on Business Life." Only here did I see anything that caught my eye. After pages and pages of articles on big business, the last page contains thoughts from various famous individuals on how business and the environment intersect. One author, Jose Ortega Y Gasset wrote, "I am I plus my surroundings and if I do not preserve the latter, I do not preserve myself." The photo in the article shows some beautiful swans in a lake before a set of smokestacks. The message I took from the article was that we are trying so hard in our business life to make a division that does not truly exist. We cannot simply see business as what we do during the week and nature and environmental preservation as something we can appreciate during a weekend hike. In the generation of power and use of this power in our corporate world, we often forget that there are environmental repercussions with our business goals. It is easy to talk about utility or steel companies in Wall Street terms and more difficult to think about the environmental price that is caused by these companies' activities. Obviously, we need power, steel and many other products of highly polluting industries. Yet, we need to face up to the fact that there are by-products of creating these products that are harming our surroundings. If we ignore the world we live in, we are encroaching upon our own ability to thrive in the world, given how dependent we are on the earth's natural resources. Too often, it seems that we do not respect the earth that gives us all of the tools for our big money industries. We prefer to punish rather than protect the earth sometimes. If we just put a little more thought into taking care of our earth as we grow our economy, our future could remain bright. For instance, if we really push renewable energy sources that reap the resources of the sun and wind, we are taking advantage of what the world gives us without harming the world in the process. Given that countries like Spain use more wind power than the United States, surely we could be doing more to use what gifts we have without hurting our surroundings. What excuse do we have for pushing for more dirty coal plants when we are not even coming close to using the alternative energy sources that are around us?

I found this issue of Fortune telling in the postioning of this article, at the very back of the issue. Just as we often forget about preserving our earth on a day-to-day basis by being caught up in making money, this issue seemed so caught up in discussing big business ventures that anything pertaining to the environment was more of an afterthought.

I previously wrote about the situation revolving around Sudan's oil wealth. I saw a letter to the editor in the Economist, challenging some of the points raised in the Economist's previous article on the subject. The letter was from Dr. Ghazi Salahuddin Atabani, parliamentary leader of the National Congress Party in Sudan. While I question some of the veracity of his points, it is always good to read the other side of the story. He took issue with the Economist's position that the national government failed to share the great oil wealth with the masses. In his letter, Dr. Atabani states that Sudan has doubled its spending on poor citizens lately and that because of spending on poor areas, the country has fallen into deficit. He also states that with the National Petroleum Commission, there will be "sustainable, equitable and transparent oil development." Further, Dr. Atabani claims that 70% of Darfur is secure and that it has "bustling local markets, streets and farms" and that people in the area are able to harvest much more food than previously.

While there may be some validity to Dr. Atabani's arguments, it seems to me that this position is a type of smokescreen for the reality that most of the Sudanese people endure tremendous poverty and that the oil dollars are just not being spread equitably. If this tremendous wealth was being spread around the country as it was coming in, then why would the national budget have to go into deficit? Perhaps the deficit is a result of too few funds remaining after the small wealthy oil beneficiaries take their cuts and leave little on which to run the country's economy. Even if the situation in Darfur has improved (which in my mind is still questionable, at least in terms of the picture painted by Dr. Atabani), the glaring disparity between these people, whose world has been turned upside down, and those who have taken most of the oil wealth, is evident. How can Dr. Atabani claim that anything about the oil industry in Sudan will be "sustainable, equitable and transparent." It appears that the where great oil wealth lies, some of the greatest poverty and inequity also seems to exist.

I saw an advertisement in the Economist from Hitachi that I thought was very misleading. It looks almost like an article rather than an ad, with a heading of, "Coal's Comeback" followed by, "The True Story of Clean Power in Council Bluffs." The ad notes that coal was formerly a "four-letter word in environmental circles." The ad goes on to say that Hitachi is helping to change that image, starting with a generating unit in Council Bluffs, Iowa. It is true that so-called "clean coal' has fewer emissions than traditional coal-fired power plants, yet I would hardly call it clean power. The ad shows a child fishing right by the smokestacks of the power plant, perhaps to symbolize that coal is the way of the future and to promote the purity of using it for power. The problem is that even IGCC technology, which converts coal to a gas, does not eliminate carbon dioxide emissions, unless this carbon dioxide is somehow injected into the ground. Yet, the latter technology has not been perfected and most clean coal plants do not call for this carbon sequestration. In addition, how can we call coal clean when it requires destructive mining and creates sludge and other solid waste products that need to be disposed of somewhere?

Of course, it is better to use cleaner coal technology than traditional coal technology, in terms of having less pollution emanating from the smokestacks. Yet, this technology should be called "cleaner coal" technology and not "clean coal" technology. In my opinion, the only clean energy technology is that which creates no emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions, and which creates no waste products from energy production. With this, we are back to wind and solar power. Of course, there is some initial pollution created to make the solar panels and the wind turbines. Yet, over time, this pollution can be offset by the years of clean power that result from the wind and sun. Coal may seem like the panacea to some, yet the reality is that it can only be so clean and its polluting nature can never be fully eliminated.

I saw an advertisement at the back of the Economist with a picture of an ear of corn. The ad says at the top, "This is Not Corn." The ad then says, "Trium Global Executive MBA...The World of Business Through a Global Lens." This ad notes that although some may just see corn, the student at this school would see "global, socio-political and economic issues that profoundly affect the world." In a circle next to the ear of corn, the ad states the following: "Futures, Environment, Global Warming, Energy Consumption, Price Volatility, Government Subsidies, Trade, Global Supply Chains [and] Foreign Policy."

I thought this ad was really interesting because even ten years ago, an ear of corn was something for a barbecue and not the symbol of all of these huge world issues. It is positive progress, in my opinion, that an ear of corn has come to represent part of the global energy market. Although ethanol needs to be perfected, it is great that ads like this one view corn as a prominent symbol for this century. It is definitely true that corn has the prospect of impacting one country's relationship with others in many ways; it may be that by producing its own ethanol, a country may be less dependent on others for oil and may in fact, be able to export ethanol to other nations. The demand for corn may become so high that it could be a very valuable commodity on the world markets. Perhaps the next ad for this business school will contain a wind turbine, a solar panel or a trash bag (since methane from landfills is an energy resource). I am all for it if these items become symbols of where our world is today and where it is headed with alternative energy.

I was watching "Modern Marvels" last night on the History Channel. The program discussed ancient Instanbul or Constantinople as it was then. It was amazing to see the architecture of the time. The most impressive part was the engineering feat of bringing in drinking water from miles away via aqueducts. This system was used up until the 19th century. It was especially incredible to me that this entire system functioned simply by gravity--no other energy was needed for it to work. The water traveled via miles of aqueduct and then into an underground basin, where it continued to move until it was accessible through fountains in the city square. Given that this system was developed many centuries ago, it is hard to believe that we have such a tough time finding ways to create energy using non-polluting sources. If the people of this empire could pump in drinking water with just the laws of gravity to depend upon, why do we have such a hard time powering our world with sources other than fossil fuels? Too bad the people of Constantinople did not power their homes with windmills or the sun--at least to my knowledge. Perhaps if this empire endured just a bit longer, this too, could have been added to their list of accomplishments. In my mind, if we can engineer an i-Pod that has a phone, camera and music player, then what is our excuse for failing to utilize the renewable energy sources that we have available? Maybe we need to return to our roots a bit and put the cart before the horse. Let's find the clean energy sources to power all of our new gizmos, rather than putting more pressure on fossil fuels to give us the increasing energy we need. Perhaps we need to think logically like the people of Constantinople did with their water system.

I saw an editorial written originally for the Washington Post, which was re-printed in the Evansville Courier & Press. The editorial was entitled, "States taking green steps." It discussed the measures that several states are taking to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Although expensive to make such changes, many of the changes are actually fairly simple to implement and the cost can be re-couped over time. For instance, Virginia plans to purchase 5% of its energy from wind farms in West Virginia (which I thought was an even bigger boost for coal-reliant West Virginia). Virginia also plans to invest more in solar panels. Once this energy is obtained in a reliable fashion from these renewable sources, it should eliminate certain costs, such as disposing of power plant waste. Although the editorial doesn't really delve into this aspect of the issue, I would guess that over time, renewable energy will save states money, as the energy once accessed efficiently and with the right infrastructure is pollution-free. The editorial does discuss how Virginia will pass out energy-efficient light bulbs and plant more trees to combat global warming. Further, Virginia will make its public buildings more energy-efficient, such that they will save electricity expenses down the road. Interestingly, the article notes that "buildings alone are responsible for at least 38% of greenhouse emissions in the United States." I was uncertain as to whether this counted all of the emissions produced by power plants in generating electricity to power buildings. At any rate, it is clear that if more and more states simply buy more renewable energy, plant some trees and modify buildings such that they are more energy-efficient, our country's greenhouse gas emissions could be cut fairly dramatically without us feeling much of a pinch. This sounds like the way to go. So, why have the majority of states still been dragging their feet? If California and New York can do this, why not every state in the union???

Occasionally, I see letters to the editor in the Evansville Courier & Press from a man who feels meat-eaters are the real source of our energy and environmental problems. I have read that there are environmental issues with chicken farms, for instance, because they sometimes foster e-coli. Yet, I had never read much on the energy implications of being a meat-eater until I saw an article in the latest Newsweek. The article is entitled, "Easy to be Green," and it discusses small changes that we can all make to conserve energy and be more eco-conscious. One recommendation, espoused by the Union of Concerned Scientists, is for each meat-eating person to have a meat-free day once a week. I'm sure the animals spared (or at least spared temporarily) would appreciate it. The reason given by this organization is that meat production consumes tremendous energy and natural resources. In fact, it takes 16 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. Apparently, if each of us consumed less meat, we'd save a lot of energy. The article doesn't say whether this is strictly a beef thing, or whether this energy savings would be true if we ate less chicken, as well.

In terms of seafood, I can see the energy savings we might have if we followed Newsweek's second recommendation, which is to buy locally. This saves fuel in transporting the fish across the country. The only problem is that in Indiana and many other states, it is not safe to consume locally caught fish due to the high mercury content. For this reason, I always feel better buying fish from Alaska or the Pacific. This is obviously not energy-efficient, but short of not buying fish, it doesn't leave people in Indiana much in the way of options if they want to eat fish. If we want to better the environment through our practices with eating fish, we need to improve conditions such that locally caught fish are safe to eat. This means drastically decreasing emissions of mercury from coal-fired power plants, as these plants deposit a great deal of mercury which ends up in our waterways.

I read an article on Yahoo today regarding General Motors' plans to improve their sport utility vehicles' gas mileage. The plan is pretty ambitious and involves using a lithium-ion battery that would allow GM's SUVs to run 70 miles on a single tank of gas. In theory, such a vehicle could run 10 to 20 miles without using any gas, as the battery would supply the power up to that point. GM has teamed up with battery manufacturers to develop this battery, which would be plugged into an electrical outlet for charging.

This plan sounds good on a number of levels, namely that SUVs could finally stop being the tremendous gas-guzzlers that they usually are. Since people are going to drive them anyway, GM might as well improve their gas mileage. On the other hand, what will stop people from driving increasingly larger vehicles, since they might feel that the car companies will eventually improve the gas mileage? In other words, this move may discourage people from buying Prius-type hybrids or hydrogen vehicles or any other more fuel efficient cars. In addition, by increasing the electricity demand in order to charge these batteries, are we really making a dent in the global warming issue? We may be decreasing emissions from gas by allowing the vehicles to run up to 20 miles without even accessing the gas in the tanks, yet we are probably going to burning more coal to charge the batteries. Perhaps the net increase in electrical use will be far off-set by the gas savings, but I didn't see anything showing such a comparison.

In any event, I suppose the best part of this whole process is that die-hard SUV drivers will continue driving them but will be using less gas; perhaps that decreased oil demand may allow more room for alternative energy development. I suppose we may also reach the point where these batteries could be recharged simply by directing them into the sun. Further, once this battery is perfected, it may be so efficient that we can decrease the gas useage even further. All in all, GM's move does sound like a positive one and one where the potential pitfalls may be able to be turned into further gains.

When I was in Knoxville, Tennessee last night, I saw a story on the local news about plans to burn millions of pounds of power plant toxic waste in an incinerator there. I missed the beginning of the story, where they spoke about the type of facility in Knoxville where they plan to burn all of this waste, but it is apparently the only one like it in the country. The remainder of the waste (i.e. any that remains in a solid form after the other waste is burned) will be landfilled in Utah. The news had about a two minute story on the matter--in which one local official wanted to assure the public that this is all totally safe--before the newscasters went on to discuss other matters, including weather and sports.

What bothered me most about this story was the rather knee-jerk reaction that we often have to take one spokesperson's word as absolute fact and be reassured by a small soundbite before we move on to the other news segments. Doesn't burning millions of pounds of toxic waste deserve more news coverage and more concern from the public than this? Where are the stories showing thousands of city residents asking hard-hitting questions as to exactly what the air emissions will be, how the air pollution will be contained, what the health risks are to the public, etc.? It didn't seem like this was the approach that would be taken or that the public was even that concerned about this issue. It also bothered me that we are supposed to be okay with toxic waste landfilling, even in huge amounts, so long as it is done in Utah. Since when did Utah's residents volunteer their state to be the toxic waste dumping ground?

Perhaps the incineration will be so contained that the risks to the people in the area are not that great. Yet, without a lot of public debate and pointed questions to those doing this burning, how can the people of Knoxville be so sure this is true? Since I was only there for one night, I am not sure how this issue will be settled or whether there will be more public interest in the matter. Hopefully, with the burning of millions of pounds of toxic waste on the local agenda, the public will speak out before it is too late to do so.

This is my first blog of the new year, since I've been on vacation. I heard today about how Exxon-Mobil has been spending $16 million to discredit global warming. It apparently has been funding groups that try to stir up a debate over global warming that doesn't exist, including putting a spin on established facts to make them look less certain than they are. The tactic has been deemed similar to that taken in the past by tobacco companies as to the health effects of smoking.

After hearing about this, I realized why it can be so hard to get through to certain people about the reality and seriousness of global warming. If you have an oil company funneling money into a campaign to cast doubt on global warming, many members of the public will come to believe that there is a true debate. It is sad when a manufactured debate takes the shape of a true debate. It is also disheartening when a company that relies so heavily on fossil fuels can make the world believe that fossil fuels are not one of the causes of global climate change problems. If Exxon-Mobil wants to question global warming, then its company officials should have an open, candid discussion with the renowned scientists that have researched the issue. Instead of taking this approach, it has resorted to underhanded and rather sneaky methods of trying to divert the public's attention from this pivotal issue. I hope the naysayers as to global warming will finally see the "debate" for what it truly is--a fallacy. Just as we all know that smoking causes cancer and other serious health problems, global warming and climate change are real and not simply speculative theories.