I was reading in Business 2.0 about a new BMW vehicle, called the Hydrogen 7. The article reminds us that petroleum-fueled vehicles emit more than 10 billion metric tons of carbon into the air each year. The Hydrogen 7 is interestingly, not a fuel-cell vehicle. Rather, it uses a combustion engine to burn both gas and hydrogen--i.e. bi-fuel. This seems rather disappointing at first, but given the absence of hydrogen pumps in many parts of the nation, it is realistic, at least in the short term. The article notes that the H7 (with its cost not listed in the article) is really destined for the rich and famous--or at least the rich--to act as ambassadors of sorts for hydrogen's benefits. The article further tries to dispel the notion that this vehicle is a smaller version of the Hinderburg, by noting that hydrogen is safer than gasoline. Yet, it does remind us that hydrogen is volatile and occasionally unstable and hence, parking in closed garages where the vapors could ignite, is forbidden. If a breach is detected in the tanks, the car's engine is designed to stop. If all else fails, the driver can pull out the fire extinguisher beneath the front passenger seat. A little scary, perhaps. Yet, if we want to transition towards a carbon-free world (or at least a carbon-reduced world), we need to learn how to manage and use hydrogen properly. If this idea takes off, perhaps the next H7s selling in the dealerships will be the hydrogen-only version. BMW is already working on those.

I was reading in the Evansville Courier & Press what one Evansville resident in the early 1900s had predicted for the area in the following century. He believed that by the next century, the city would be huge, with tall skyscrapers and moving sidewalks. He also predicted that the entire city would be run on hydropower, since in his estimation, coal supplies would be gone by then. In his vision, Evansville would be the Midwest's vacation destination, with boats all over the Ohio River and numerous parks and green spaces. I couldn't help but wish that more of this vision had become a reality. Evansville's downtown could use a bit of a facelift, althought that is changing slowly at this point. The real irony I saw is that this individual predicted the area would be far beyond coal-reliant and would in fact, obtain all of its electricity from hydropower from the river. Now, I know that damming rivers to create this kind of power has environmental implications, including upsetting aquatic life, but when you look at the mercury and other pollutants from coal entering our waterways, would the fish be worse off with hydropower? It was ironic to me that someone early in the last century had viewed the southern Indiana of today as being run on renewable and clean energy rather than the dirty coal of that time. I wonder what this visionary would think about this area still be extremely reliant on the coal industry. He would probably be dismayed that his forward-thinking view on the area was too ambitious--even if he was looking forward about 100 years. I wonder how many parts of our nation will still be tied to coal in the next century. With global warming already starting to rear its ugly head, perhaps forward-thinking visionaries will be given more respect than simply being viewed as people with pipe-dreams.

Alternative Energy

As much as I start thinking that more and more people are caring about conserving energy and resources, sometimes I read articles that show otherwise. For instance, I was reading an article in the Evansville Courier & Press about plastic disposable containers. I expected that the article would contain some caveat to the ease and convenience that these containers have provided us, such as the incredible waste they produce when people simply toss them away after one or two uses or the additional energy that must go in to producing more and more of these containers. Yet, the article did not speak of any such downsides. Rather, the article seemed to be advocating this practice. Instead of actually caring about more expensive Tupperware, plastic container prices have gone down so much that people don't care if they get lost. Also, there's no sense in washing them per the people interviewed for the article, since they can just be thrown away and cheapy replaced. It's really depressing that people are too lazy in this day and age to wash out a container. Is this really the kind of mind-set that we want to encourage our next generation to have? I have to admit that I sometimes use more plastic bags than I should, but I still try to re-use them. With plastic containers, you can at least recycle them when they wear out. Yet, this takes the huge effort of washing the thing out and sticking it in the recycling bin--at least that's the way the article would probably portray it.

I read this great article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard about solar power called, "Monday View, Cheap Solar Power Poised to Undercut Oil and Gas by half." The article was online at the Telegraph.co.uk website. According to the article, solar power may be the leader in the energy market in only a decade, by undercutting fossil fuel prices by half. In as little as five years, solar power wattage prices may be so low as to directly compete with fossil fuels even in sometimes gloomy countries like England, Scandinavia and Siberia. The secret to this amazing prospect is simply improved solar technology. One of the leaders in this realm is Anil Sethi, of the Swiss start-up company, Flisom. This company's solar material is 200 times (!) lighter than glass-based solar materials and can be mass-produced. Because of its lightweight consistency, it can be applied directly to buildings and can be made into matching colors. This material is a foil; it functions by absorbing light via freeing electrons. The material can produce solar power even on cold, cloudy days--so, I guess all of the solar-power skeptics will have to forget their argument that solar power isn't feasible anywhere other than in hot, sunny climates. Other companies, such as the U.S. company of Applied Materials, is getting into the game of cheaper solar technology, as well. The best part of more accessible solar power seems to be what it could do for less-developed nations--i.e., no need for power lines or fuel trucks in rural areas or those dreaded open kerosene stoves.

Anil Sethi's motto is one that will hopefully become the slogan for alternative energy as a whole: "We don't need subsidies; we just need governments to get out of the way and do no harm." Instead of our world leaders pushing coal or nuclear power or being tied to the oil industry, they should let solar power have its day and shine--literally and figuratively. Apparently, the free market in the solar power industry is working just fine on its own.

I read this morning in the Evansville Courier & Press that Australia is phasing out incandescent light bulbs, in favor of more energy-efficient fluorescent ones. Proposed legislation to restrict the incandescent bulbs could lower "Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tons by 2012 and cut household power bills by up to 66%." The article further notes that Australia produced close to 565 million tons (!) of greenhouse gases in 2004.

This relatively small measure is a great example of how all citizens in a nation can play an instrumental role in lessening the effects of global warming. When people realize that baby steps can lead to huge gains in this realm, they may have incentive to try even harder to make a difference. Most of us still have incandescent bulbs in our homes. Perhaps this move in Australia could be the motivation that we need in this nation, even though our country has not yet taken the step of phasing out the incandescent bulbs on a mandatory basis.

My friend, NJ, raised a good point the other day about poorer countries using cheaper energy. It is true that it will be difficult to convince nations with low per capita incomes, like India, to spend money on cleaner power, even if in the end, this is the only sustainable option. However, there are situations where clean power is not only increasingly accessible to poorer nations but also, cheaper to use than fossil fuels. One case in point is a solar-powered oven that I read about recently. The inventor of this device, who I believe is based in Illinois, has tried to make these ovens more available to third world nations. In some of these countries, kerosene has been used to cook, which not only costs people money but also, creates a great deal of air pollution. In India, only recently has kerosene been targeted, as some of the vehicles even used it in the past as fuel. I believe the solar ovens can reach 400 degrees, which is more than hot enough to cook most foods. Once these ovens are purchased, they can run indefinitely using the sun, and therefore, they will at some point pay for themselves. As I recall, the ovens cost about $500.00, which is pricey for someone making only $50.00 a month. Yet, over time, the ovens would use free power and create a healthier lifestyle for the families doing the cooking (as well as those in the area previously breathing all of the kerosene-laden air). Perhaps the solar oven is a small start, yet in my opinion, we could really make a difference in the less-developed world by contributing these devices to families there, as part of any foreign aid package. Perhaps if the individuals in these hot and sunny nations, like India, experience the advantages of solar power first-hand, their leaders will see how alternative energy can be a boost to their countries' welfare. If the wealthier nations can market other goods, such as cars and electronics, to developing nations, shouldn't alternative energy products be part of that portfolio?

I was thinking more about Fareed Zakaria's attitude about being a realist as to global warming. The same perspective is true as to dealing with coal-fired power plants. We may hate the concept, but they will not simply disappear. As much as I would like to fight the battle to close coal-fired power plants or prevent new ones from opening, I have somewhat resigned myself to the fact that these plants provide cheap and plentiful power and therefore, will continue to operate. Like Mr. Zakaria, I don't look at this attitude as giving in and putting my head in the sand. Rather, I try to focus not only on doing some letters as to the future of coal-fired power plants but also, on how to handle the current state of affairs. As many of us think about how we should be getting away from coal and moving on to alternative energy, the reality is that coal is being used, every hour of every day. Alcoa, for one, burns 19 truckloads of coal per hour and plans to burn more in the future. If we only focus on eliminating coal in the future, we are ignoring the many pollutants that are entering our environment all the time. I think we need to take a two-pronged approach, just as Mr. Zakaria notes we need to do with global warming. We need to fight against more coal use in the future and deal with the current use of coal. One major problem with coal is the mercury pollution that is contaminating our land and waterways and poisoning our fish. When people eat this fish, especially children, they can experience neurological problems and I.Q. deficiencies. In Indiana, a rule is proposed to limit mercury emissions by 66% by 2025, I believe. There is another proposed rule, that would eliminate mercury emissions by 90% in the near future. There are issues as to cost of the 90% reduction, but it appears that it would actually be quite feasible and cost-effective to make this drastic a reduction. Plus, when you are dealing with a known neurotoxin, why cut corners so much? Other states, including Illinoise, are making this leap, so I don't see why it's so hard for people in Indiana to accept. In my opinion, if people here want to stick with coal for the foreseeable future, the least they can do is agree to these control measures--even if people pay a few dollars more per month on their utility bills.

I was reading in the Economist about coal mining accidents in portions of Latin America. In Colombia, an explosion in a "rudimentary coal mine" killed 32 miners. Only days later, another explosion killed eight miners. We all know that in other parts of the world, like China, there have been numerous mining accidents. We have had some recently in the U.S., as well, but our mines are still considerably safer than those in other, less-developed nations. If the various nations in the world increasingly want to rely on cheap coal to satisfy power needs, we can expect more mining disasters like these. The problem with fossil fuels, like coal, is that there are bound to be cut corners in nations that need electricity now. The powers that be in some of these less-developed nations are going to look the other way when there are safety issues, even when mining in and of itself is a verty risky job. By doing business with these nations, we are in a sense, closing our eyes to human rights violations, as workers are going to be pressured to work in treacherous mines, like that in Colombia. If we don't encourage the use of alternative energy, how are other nations going to have the incentive to follow suit? If we stick with antiquated energy sources, how will other nations move away from these cheap power sources?

I read an article in the Economist entitled, "A policy of denial," about the future of nuclear power in Germany. The article raises an important issue: Should current nuclear plants be phased out or should their lifespan be extended to help nations meet environmental goals, such as combatting global warming? As I've discussed in the past, I am not a big fan of nuclear power, given the terrorism target these plants can become and the ancillary nuclear waste of which needs to be disposed very carefully. The article notes that Germany has found little more than "interim solutions" for nuclear waste storage. Yet, in Europe, nuclear power is often the norm, such as in France. The Germans seem a bit more ambivalent as to the future of nuclear power, but with its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals--40% below 1990 levels by 2020--it may need to continue to run nuclear plants longer than anticipated. German officials note that renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, cannot alone meet its energy needs. Its gas and oil supplies have been less secure given the antics of countries like Russia. Although Germany wants to explore cleaner coal (which we all know I am not a big fan of either), it does not have any such plants available presently.

It's hard not to sympathize with the Germans. It seems that the German leaders are serious about global warming and limiting the country's contribution to it, yet the nation may not have enough reliable energy sources for the future if nuclear power is phased out. That leaves the dilemma of whether to encourage Germany to build more traditional coal-fired power plants, such as in our nation, China and India, to meet energy needs and do away with nuclear power, or on the flip-side, to encourage it to meet climate change goals and continue to use nuclear power. If these are the choices, I think I'd be inclined to lean towards sticking with nuclear power for the time being, while exploring alternative energy options. Nuclear power has significant downsides, yet if we dissuade nations from limiting greenhouse gas emissions, we know our fate. This is certainly one of the more complicated issues for the energy arena.

I read Fareed Zakaria's column in Newsweek entitled, "Global Warming: Get Used to It." Mr. Zakaria's position is that global warming is real and unfortunately, unstoppable. He notes that greenhouse gases 'do not disappear or dissipate easily" and that "[e]ven if the world adopted the most far-reaching plans to combat climate change, most scientists agree that the concentration of greenhouse gases will continue to rise for the next few decades." He further notes that per leading scientists, we would need to cut our carbon dioxide emissions by 60% just to keep greenhouse gases at the current levels. This seems highly unlikely to happen, both in light of the Bush Administration's refusal to set in place mandatory carbon dioxide caps and the blatant pursuit of more coal-fired power plants by companies like TXU. Even if mandatory caps were instituted, the most we could hope for in the foreseeable future to be imposed would probably be in the 10-15% reduction range. Plus, how are we going to regulate China and India, with the 650 coal-fired power plants in the works? Mr. Zakaria's point seems to be not to throw our hands up and give in to global warming but rather, to admit it's happening and will happen and to start making a Plan B. In other words, if we can't stop global warming (which he feels we should still try to combat), we must prepare ourselves better for it. He notes such concepts as developing plants and crops better suited for hot, arid climates and relocating some seaside communities.

Mr. Zakaria raises some really valid points. He talks of two realities--i.e. that we must cut greenhouse gases to mitigate some of the global warming consequences and that we must prepare ourselves for the future of a more volatile earth. If we don't do both of these tasks, we could end up with an even worse case of global warming and a world of people wholly unprepared for the fallout. I wonder what George Will would say about this? If he has a home along the coast, he might want to heed Mr. Zakaria's warning.

I read an article by Marc Gunther in Fortune entitled, "A Texas Coal Rush." The article discusses how in the wake of many companies facing up to global warming and the need to be more eco-friendly, there is one company bucking the trend: TXU. TXU plans to build 11 new coal-fired power plants in Texas, costing nearly $1 billion each. Opponents of the plan, which include several celebrities such as Don Henley and the mayors of Houston and Dallas, fear the environmental impact of these new plants. Already, Texas is the top carbon emitter in the U.S. and these new plants alone could generate an additional 78 million (!) tons of carbon dioxide each year. I guess Mike McCall, CEO of TXU, has missed all of the films and press reports as to how global warming is already occurring and that we desperately need to reduce, not drastically raise, carbon dioxide emissions. His comeback is that our nation needs power now and in the future and that coal is American power that can make us more energy independent. He also touts the fact that new plants may lead to retiring of old plants and that the modern plants "will be designed so that someday they can be retrofitted to capture and store carbon" The operative word in that sentence is "someday." These plants will not capture carbon in the foreseeable future. Despite all of the protest, it appears that TXU will get its way; the new plants are projected to generate an additional $700 million in annual profits, which will make the company's shareholders happy.

This article was very discouraging, since it shows that the coal industry is booming rather than waning. I am sure that people like Mr. McCall live no where near one of their plants and as such, can probably distance themselves mentally from the sulfur dioxide, nitrgoen oxide and mercury pollution. They probably care little for what they are doing to areas around Texas where the plants are to be situated. These company officials simply look at averages--e.g. overall emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury will be 20% lower after the new plants are built and the old ones are retired. The residents near the plants look at the reality. As Jim Marston of Environmental Defense states, "You don't breathe average air....You breathe the air you breathe." The real test of this company's success in the future will be the global warming issue. If the nation does finally institute carbon emission caps, what will happen to the stock of TXU? Limiting carbon dioxide from these huge plants is sure to be costly. Or will TXU find a way around that by simply buying carbon credits in a cap and trade program for years and years down the line? Companies like TXU really make a mockery of our administration saying that global warming needs to be addressed.

I read an article by Mike Meyers in the Evansville Courier & Press entitled, "Ethanol production may mean less food, higher prices." According to the article, "[t]he number of hungry people worldwide could grow by more than 50% by 2020, as corn, sugar and other food staples are increasingly devoted to making fuel in the United States and abroad...." These economists claim that ethanol production will mean much higher food prices in the U.S. and other developed nations. They say that the better option is for conservation to reduce energy demand. Of course, the corn and ethanol producers dispute these claims. It is a fact, however, that ethanol plants could consume more than 35% of the U.S. corn crop in the next few years. Already, ethanol production has consumed 1.6 billion bushels of corn, between September of 2005 and August of 2006.

What confuses me a bit about this debate is the type of corn being discussed. The article seems a bit misleading in suggesting that the corn being used is the kind people eat--such as corn on the cob. My understanding is that the corn used for ethanol is more of an animal feed-level corn, such that our sweet corn supply would not be jeopardized. Yet, I am curious whether the corn used for ethanol is what is used to make other products we do eat, such as cereal. If that is the case, perhaps we really do have something to worry about if we are planning to devote over one-third of our corn to ethanol in the coming years. Another concern is that if corn prices are sky-high, our cost for poultry, beef, etc. may skyrocket, since these animals eat corn. We also have to think of the other materials being used for ethanol, such as the sugar mentioned in the article. Will we face a situation where so much of farmland or plantations will be devoted to corn and sugarcane, just to meet the ethanol demand, that other crops will suffer? This could be a secondary negative of ethanol production.

Despite all of these downsides, I still feel that ethanol can be perfected and become a real leader in the alternative fuel arena. I would rather face crop growing challenges in the future than what seems to be a scarier situation of increasing oil demand in the world. By now, we know where we are headed if we continue to burn fossil fuels like crazy. We know that with global warming, we will have much bigger issues than higher crop prices or too many farms growing corn. We will have drought-stricken farms that are incapable of meeting human food needs or perhaps, farms that are flooded out by increasingly intense storms and rising tides. Personally, I'd rather deal with the challenges of ethanol if it means less dependence on fossil fuels. Plus, the by-product of ethanol can be used to feed livestock, so there is a bonus for the animals, as well. The main focus right now should be to perfect the production and distribution of ethanol, such that fossil fuels don't need to be depended upon in this process. If we can't get this part right, then ethanol will never be the real alternative fuel that we are looking for.

It was interesting to read on Yahoo that incandescent light bulbs may be going extinct. In New Jersey, where a town is named after Thomas Edison, a lawmaker has presented a bill that would compel government buildings to switch to fluorescent lighting in the next three years. Even more stringent is a bill presented in California, to ban the use of incandescent light bulbs altogether. This measure was taken given that incandescent light bulbs use 50%+ more energy than their fluorescent counterparts. The flip side, however, is that fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury vapors which can be released when the bulbs are broken. Accordingly, these light bulbs should be recycled rather than landfilled.

It is almost hard to fathom that our children may not even know what an incandescent light bulb is or how it looks, if these bulbs indeed become nothing more than museum pieces. Yet, this movement away from something heavily relied upon, yet energy-intensive, is what we need in a world that is readying itself to accept alternative energy on a greater scale. I just hope that one day our children will be taken aback when we tell them that we used to drive cars using gasoline or that our electricity came from burning coal. Perhaps the light bulb change seems like one small step in some respects, but it could be a giant step in terms of getting us out of our energy-wasting, fossil fuel-burning rut.

Sometimes I actually find conservative commentator, George Will, amusing or even insightful. Yet, after reading his "Inconvenient Kyoto Truths" in the latest issue of Newsweek, I was neither amused nor filled with insight. To me, Mr. Will seems to have the need to carry the conservative view on absolutely everything, even when it makes no sense. His whole attitude towards global warming, for one, is simply ignorant. He still sticks with the line of "[w]e don't know to the extent to which human activity caused" the earth's warming. Isn't this always what the global warming naysayers go back to, even after there is a huge consensus among the scientific community (e.g. the 500 scientific leaders in Paris recently) that human activity has led to climate change? I wonder sometimes if Mr. Will has some ties to a fossil fuel industry, since he seems so opposed to actually pushing alternative energy and doing something about global warming. He is like the flip side of the Chinese foreign minister. As we know, Jiang Yu claims that China is not responsible for global warming because the developed nations like ours have been causing this phenomenon over years and years of industrialization. Mr. Will, meanwhile, states that the U.S. is poweless to change global warming when "every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego." The latter claim is true, yet does this excuse us from stopping our own wrongs with our power plant emissions? It's sort of like two children blaming each other for starting something and/or continuing something bad and the parents or teachers throwing out the old adage of "two wrongs don't make a right." When are people like Mr. Yu and Mr. Will going to realize that we can use the blame game into eternity and it won't stop the collapse of our global climate. Alternative energy will at some point no longer be just an alternative but rather, it will be the only long term solution to global warming. How long will it take for Mr. Yu and Mr. Will to see this?

I was reading an article from Reuters on Yahoo regarding China's position on global warming. It appears that China does not question the reality of global warming and climate change so much as who should be responsible for doing something about it. China's Foreign Minister, Jiang Yu, has stated that the developed (not developing) countries are to blame and should be the ones to lead the way in cutting emissions. His position is that long-term, historic emissions are the culprit for global warming, which seems to be another way of him saying that a country on the fast-track to developing and industrializing (like China or India), should not be viewed as accountable. He did not indicate whether China would be willing to submit to caps on carbon dioxide emissions. If China's growth continues as it is now, it is poised to become the world's third largest economy by next year, trailing only the U.S. and Japan and displacing Germany, which is currently in the third position.

I was bothered by China's attitude, in that its contribution to global warming can hardly be denied, given its heavy reliance on coal for power, its huge population, it enormous growth in various polluting industries, etc. Yet, in some ways, I could understand why it views climate change as the product of industrialized nations. While China's economy has been booming in the past few years, the U.S. has been industrialized for over a century and has both generated and consumed a great deal of power leading to carbon emissions. In addition, the U.S has built itself up using steel and other materials it has manufactured for years and years, without much concern for the environmental impact until recently. After all, we didn't even have an EPA until the Nixon Administration. Why should we be pointing to China and India to change their ways when we have brazenly refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol? When our own President is opposed to mandatory caps on carbon emissions, how can we push developing countries to limit their own carbon emissions? In essence, China's Foreign Minister has a point that the developed nations are hypocrites when it comes to taking responsibilty for global warming and that this problem did not just emerge overnight or even in the past decade. Our own industrialization over many years has led to this situation. Yet, in my opinion, developing nations should not be given a pass so easily. Their burning of coal and other fossil fuels for energy and other polluting practices should not be shrugged off as insignificant. Rather, the U.S and Western Europe must set a precedent for aggressively dealing with global warming via more investments in alternative energy, such that China and India can see how these practices can bolster an economy and hopefully, forestall the worsening of climate change. China and India are industrializing just as the U.S. did in the 1800s--consuming and polluting to no end to get the economy rolling. Yet, we know better now and we must set an example that preserving our planet should not be an afterthought. Our country as a whole should be taking on the position that California has, which is to own up to carbon emissions and aggressively try to limit them, while boosting the economy with the alternative energy market. Until we make drastic changes in our own position, China and India can simply hide behind us and wait for us to take the lead.

I was reading that for the third or fourth year in a row, Alcoa was named by some publication as one of the most "sustainable" companies in the world. As I saw their smokestacks in the distance this morning, spewing out carbon dioxide among other pollutants, I wondered whether this is how our approach to global warming will continue to be. Will we continue to take highly polluting companies that are a large culprit in global warming (by burning lots and lots of coal for their energy, along with emitting other potent greenhouse gases), and reward them with accolades when they overall cut some emissions of climate changing pollution or plant some trees? It seems that despite the frightening findings as to global warming, we are thrilled when a company actually makes some changes as to greenhouse gas emissions. In Alcoa's case, their overall greenhouse gas emissions are lower, yet their carbon dioxide emissions from coal have gone up. In other words, overall, the emissions average out to being lower than before. I'm not saying that they shouldn't get credit for making changes, yet do they really deserve a pat on the back? Should we lose sight of the constant greenhouse gas emissions that companies like this one are still releasing each hour of every day? If this is the position we are going to take on this grim situation, our time to try to reverse some of the climate change effects will run out, if it hasn't already. What sounds good on paper--gradual changes to reduce greenhouse emissions over 10 or 20 years--are not enough when you are dealing with a company that spews out a huge amount of this pollution. We should also be cautious when companies like this one ask the President for legislation to control global warming. It does seem like a bold move, when the President, himself, doesn't want to impose greenhouse gas limits on companies. Yet, we must remember that these companies probably want a hand in dictating how this legislation will read, before someone else drafts much tougher legislation. In short, I think we should be pleased that companies like Alcoa are conceding that global warming is real and trying to make some changes in response to it, yet we must not sit back and be deterred from what needs to be done--i.e. massive reductions on these climate changing emissions in the near future.

Well, the scientists have spoken in Paris as to global warming. The most alarming part of what these scientists said on the issue, is that the higher sea levels and rise in temperatures "would continue for centuries" regardless of how we now control pollution. It definitely sounds like we have perhaps reached the point of no return. The scientists noted that there is a greater than 90% certainty that global warming is the result of human fossil fuel burning. Stronger hurricanes were found to be a product of global warming. The panel of scientists found that temperatures could rise 2-11.5 degrees by 2100, when some of our kids could still be alive. Meanwhile, sea levels are expected to rise 7 inches to almost 2 feet (!) by the end of this century. Didn't it take only a few degrees of temperature changes to bring on the last ice age? Haven't scientists stated that many of our cities and islands could be underwater due to rising sea levels?

After reading these findings, I felt a bit resigned to the fact that this is our destiny. Yet, I tried to reel that in quickly, by thinking, what happens if we don't curb pollution levels at this juncture? Would the 11.5 degrees increase and 2 foot sea level rise be our reality? Although the best case scenario hardly sounds appealing, it beats that worst case scenario any day. In addition, I tried to focus on the fact that since we can change the climate in such a negative way, perhaps we can make enough radical changes to reverse the situation, even if the snowball effect has already started. After all, if our survival on this planet cannot motivate radical changes, what will? It seems that self-preservation is the best instinct to work with right now. Yet, there will undoubtedly be many people who try to ignore the scientists' findings, including people in our current administration, because they want to continue down the easier path of the status quo. I think it's time we start treating global warming like we would a pandemic of a killer disease. If the latter occurred, we would drop everything to stop the spread of the killer disease and we would put as many scientists and other professionals to work to bring it under control. When are we going to stop burying our heads in the sand and start looking at global warming in the same way? Let's focus on renewable energy and find a way to make drastic, and yes, costly, cuts in our carbon emissions. This seems to be the only answer. It's just not the one we want to hear.

As if we didn't already have enough reasons to embrace alternative energy, we now have one more. A thorough study, which will be published in the near future in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that women living in cities with high levels of particulate matter have a 76% greater chance of developing heart disease than those who live in locales with less particulate matter. The study found that even with good genetics and lifestyle and an absence of other risk factors, particulate matter levels played a clear role in heart-related illness. Perhaps people will finally wake up to the fact that all of the particulate matter emanating from industry, including coal-fired power plants, can and does affect health. Yet, in many places, children are allowed to exercise outside when there are particulate matter alerts. If we want to protect women from this added risk, we had better take a look at the environment we are exposing them to, even at younger ages.

Too often it seems that people do not want to think of alternative energy as a way of protecting human health. Yet, the reality is, is that burning fossil fuels can create very unhealthy conditions. As we see from this study, such health effects are not just limited to respiratory problems. Perhaps with studies such as this one, people will realize that moving away from fossil fuels is about much more than energy independence.