I was reading an article in Newsweek called "Cleaner Karats." The article pertains to buying diamond and gold jewelry in a more socially and environmentally friendly manner. Apparently, mining for gold can produce 20 tons of waste per 18-karat gold ring, which can pollute drinking water. Companies such as Brilliantearth.com are booming, due to the sale of recycled gold items and "clean" diamonds from Canada (whatever that means). Another company, GreenKarat.com, sells recycled gold and synthetic diamonds and encourages couples to turn in old gold items to be turned into engagement or wedding bands.

This article made me also contemplate the energy consumed and the waste associated with all of the mining for new jewelry items. We all have old jewelry that is out of style or that we simply never really liked. It seems to make perfect sense to try to recycle the metal and gems already used in these items, instead of letting them sit in the drawer forever. Since there seems to be more discussion lately about reusing items and reducing waste, this seems to be a prime way in which the average person could make a difference. Perhaps the average jeweler may not like this concept, but those on-line retailers mentioned above, sure do stand to benefit.

I was reading the Evansville Courier & Press this morning when I stumbled upon an article regarding "panda poop." I really couldn't believe what I read, which is that China is looking into converting panda poop into fine quality paper. Then I noticed a reference to the fact that Thailand has already done just this, using elephant excrement. This seems like such an amazing idea, in that this would seem to preserve wildlife in Asian countries, since animal poop suddenly has market value. No longer would poachers need to kill an elephant for its tusk, when they could simply wait for it to poop and then sell that for a profit. Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but I am still really taken with this idea. In addition, we all know that Asian hardwoods are often consumed at such a rapid pace that forests are threatened. If animal poop can be the new source for paper, perhaps a few trees will be spared. This concept really gives new meaning to renewable energy.

I was about to write about the personal power plant (wind generated), which is on the cover of Business 2.0, but I didn't even make it that far when something else caught my eye. I was reading the letters to the editor and saw one regarding an article I must have missed. The letter pertained to Boeing's plan for a new passenger jet that uses as much as 30% less gasoline by combining the wings and fuselage and getting rid of the tail. My first thought was that this concept went against the laws of aerodynamics. After all, didn't even the earliest versions of aircraft have some form of tail? How can a plane fly without one? Yet, on second thought, isn't it time that we take drastic measures to change the nature of modern airplanes, given the enormous amount of fuel consumed--and greenhouse gases emitted--from these planes. I suppose someone forgot to tell the manufacturer of the plane that seats 550 passengers that just flew its first trip from Europe to the U.S. The writer of the letter to the editor had some valid concerns regarding the less gas-guzzling plane. For one thing, he noted that the ride would be anything but smooth; each row would have 45 seats, signifying that passengers away from the center would bob up and down frequently. He also noted that it would be very difficult to evacuate such a plane quickly, given how far most passengers would be from the exit. This letter made me reflect on the fact that if we want to combat global warming from the skies as well, we had better think of a way to do so that will be feasible for travelers. Perhaps if people simply flew less we could achieve some of the same goals. Yet, I suppose the planes might fly regardless of whether they were full or not. In my mind, business travel has gotten to the point of being ridiculous, with people traveling to places when they could simply use the telephone or video conferencing to take care of so many matters. Yet, if our business culture won't change, then something else will have to give, which appears to be the type of aircraft used.

I was reading in Fortune, I believe, that San Francisco has the highest recycling rate in the U.S., with 68% of people recycling. That sounds pretty good, except that still leaves 32% who don't recycle in San Francisco, and a much higher percentage of people across the country who refuse to recycle or who don't have access to recycling facilities. It makes me wonder why all states don't have some sort of container legislation, like there is in California and Hawaii, which provides the consumer a refund--5 cents or so--for bringing the bottle or can back to the store. Further, why is it when you are out and about, it is so hard to find a recycling receptable near a garbage can? It makes no sense to me that so many containers are simply tossed away into the garbage, when it takes so much more energy to make a new container from scratch rather than one recycled. We are wasting fossil fuels just because our country doesn't push people to separate out their recyclables from their regular trash. What is so hard about this? I'm sure recycling facilities use significant energy as well, but I can bet it is less than that used at landfills to process all of the trash plus the energy used to make all of the new containers. It is about time that this country took recycling seriously, as many other nations do. A good start would be for all states to give a cash-back incentive to the consumer to actually return their bottles and cans rather than disposing of them in the garbage can. Doesn't this make sense when we are starting to tout energy conservation as a top priority in this nation?

I saw a GE advertisement on TV last night showing someone dressed up in a costume--a piece of coal. At first as he walked down the street, the people around him looked at him like he was a freak. Yet, they soon started following him and the crowd grew further. The "coal" then had a following going up a steep hill. The ad then said that GE's "cleaner coal" technology, was something "everyone can get behind."

I was glad to see that GE labels the technology "cleaner coal" rather than the "clean coal" misnomer. There is a subtantial difference in my opinion between the two phrases. Yet, I was taken aback with the 'everyone can get behind' cleaner coal talk. This is hardly the case, since we still have the coal ash disposal problem, as well as the more pressing issue of global warming. The ad said nothing as to whether GE's technology has any carbon sequestration component. Even if it does, the latter is pretty experimental at this juncture. Although this development on GE's part may end up leading to coal-produced power being cleaner than traditional coal plants (which is a welcome change), these ads seem to delude the public into thinking that this technology is a pancea of some sort--sure to cure all the ills of using coal for electricity. We need to remember that using fossil fuels for power is a trade-off no matter what the controls used. There is always pollution and destructive practices involved in the mining of the coal and with the use of the coal to make the power. Given coal's high carbon content, the biggest problem with the cleaner coal technology seems to be the fact that we will continue to exacerbate global warming. We cannot afford to kid ourselves into thinking that we can instantly convert coal into a clean energy source that poses no environmental concerns. This is a dose of reality that perhaps needs to be added to the message being sent by GE.

I was reading an article in Newsweek entitled, "What Lies Beneath." The article discusses generating energy via underwater turbines in Florida. As it is now, Florida imports almost all of its electrical power and is surprisingly, not a good spot for wind turbines or even solar power (at least so the article says). The turbines would operate in The Gulf Stream, which is as strong as "all of the rivers in the world...multiplied by 30...." This measure could add thousands of jobs in Florida and save the state billions in electricity costs. In my opinion, this is a really good example of how one size does not fit all in terms of alternative energy. It seems very smart for Florida to capitalize on its strengths, such as water current speed, and translate that into electric power for the state. I would imagine that this would be a clean source of power, such as wind turbines, and of course, renewable. It sure beats importing coal generated power from other states and may end up easing the need for more coal-fired power plants in other parts of the country. It makes me wonder...Couldn't Texas, which is also surrounded by a lot of water, try something similar? At least it might be worth investigating before the state builds all of those new coal-fired power plants.

I finally saw an article in the Evansville Courier & Press stating that coal has a "bleak" future. While even scientists at MIT believe that coal will be relied upon for energy in the future, carbon sequestration poses major problems--the main one being that it hasn't been perfected yet. I am so tired of reading about IGCC technology as being "clean" coal because it can theoretically be done with a carbon sequestration component. The reality is that many of these IGCC plants are being planned without carbon capture. Rather, they are viewed by many as clean because they could potentially trap carbon in the future so that it potentially could be stored or injected in the ground. Try the latter in earthquake regions, such as southern Indiana, and who knows what would happen. With the Democrats taking the lead in Congress now, carbon caps could become a reality, although perhaps not until our current President is out of office. As the article noted, what will happen to the "cheap" coal then? Coal will no longer represent cheap power in a world of carbon limitations, since coal is one of the greatest carbon content power sources there is. Although the FutureGen coal plant, supposed to open in 2010, will supposedly trap the carbon, this is really a science experiment at this stage. How can we bank on coal for the future, as much of Indiana seems intent on doing, when the price with carbon caps could be prohibitive? It really may not make simple business sense, much less environmental sense. Maybe the coal industry needs to face up to this reality and eliminate any references to "clean coal." The latter phrase is really a myth at this stage.

I watched a story on ABC's World News Tonight last night, about the fate of incandescent light bulbs. The story noted that Phillips, one of the largest manufacturers of these light bulbs, plans to switch to fluorescent bulbs. The reason is that the fluorescent bulbs are much more energy efficient, whereas the incandescent bulbs generate mostly heat and waste a great deal of energy when lit. The Phillips executive featured in the story noted that doing away with incandescent bulbs was akin to retiring a first born child. He said that this move was necessary and that its time has come. As I stated in an earlier blog, other nations such as Australia are banning incandescent bulbs. Stores in the U.S., such as Walmart, have already switched all of their bulbs to fluorescent bulbs, mainly because it is such a cost-saving feature. I would imagine that many more retailers in this country would follow suit. Even if our own country will not mandate that fluorescent bulbs become the norm, this seems to be the way our country is moving, as the manufacturers of the bulbs and many major users of bulbs go in this direction.

I was reading a college student's editorial on line where he claimed that the Toyota Prius is less environmentally friendly and actually uses more energy (when you consider all the phases of production) than the Hummer. I found this claim very hard to believe. However, if his data has any veracity, then some of it could make sense. He states that one of the biggest problems with the Prius is one of its touted attributes as a hybrid vehicle: its battery. He notes that the battery contains nickel which is mined and smelted in Sudbury, Ontario, a huge emitter of sulfur dioxide. More importantly he notes that this plant has a history of pronounced environmental problems and that the area surrounding the mine is devoid of life. Further, he focuses on the chain that the battery process takes; the nickel is shipped to a nickel refinery in Europe, then to China for production of nickel foam, then to Japan and then to the U.S. as a finished battery. I could see based on this (assuming these facts are accurate) that a great deal of energy is used just to produce the battery. But does this make the Prius a loser compared to the mass of metal, gas guzzling Hummer?? I'm not so sure. It's a good thing that the author does not advocate buying a Hummer as the answer to those disenchanted with the Prius. Rather, he suggest buying a non-hybrid but fuel-efficient vehicle like the Scion or the Aveo. If his facts are accurate, perhaps he is right about these other options.

I was reading that the U.S. State Department wrote to the British Columbian government, protesting a new coal mine proposed for that region. The mine would be located just north of Glacier National Park and the U.S. government is afraid that it would cause damage to the environment in Montana. While I was glad to see that our administration was anxious to protect our national parks from threats north of the border, it seemed pretty hypocritical to me. Where is our State Department when coal is being mined in this country every day and damage is being caused to the topography and environment in many of our states? For instance, when the mountains of West Virginia are being detonated with TNT, where is the angry letter to the coal mining companies from the Bush Administration? When miners are working in conditions where they do not have methane monitors or they are at risk of being trapped in underground mines, where is our government? It only seems that action follows some catastrophe. My theory is that the government took action on the British Columbian mine because of the nostalgic and sentimental meaning that Glacier National Park has to many in this nation. While this park is more than worthy of protection and should be shielded from the effects of coal mining, what about other areas of our nation? If anything, the Bush Administration seems to be making destructive coal mining easier rather than harder to accomplish in many parts of the U.S. Further, when it comes to protecting our nation's citizens from the damaging effects of coal pollution, such as mercury, the EPA has dropped the ball many times. I think it is time that this double-standard be done away with and that our State Department start writing letters to more coal mining companies than those north of our nation's border. If we don't act even-handedly with our country's own coal mining operations, how can we tell other nation's companies what to do?

I was reading an article in the Evansville Courier & Press entitled, "National homebuilders are still lagging behind with 'green' construction." The article, by Vinnee Tong, notes that although large national homebuilders account for 80% of all homebuilding activity in the country, they are challenged when it comes to incorporating green building practices on a large scale. The problem is that although some of these builders have used more energy-efficient materials or have dabbled in more environmentally-friendly products for the homes, they are having difficulty in getting consumers to pay more for them. While green building should rise to about 10% of home building by 2010, that leaves 90% of home building that will not fall in the green category. The importance of homebuilders jumping on the green bandwagon is significant, since buildings can contribute a great deal to greenhouse gas emissions. This is in light of all of the materials, transportation, operation, etc. Ara Hovnanian of Hovnanian Enterprises, a large homebuilder, notes that buyers are reluctant to fork out the extra money for green building, such as solar panels, even though this builder did the admirable job of building an all-green community in California. The consumers' reaction was not as enthusiastic as Mr. Hovnanian expected.

The irony of the buyers' reaction in my mind is that a green house would probably be more of a cost-saver in the long-run, since if a home is highly energy efficient or even capable of generating its own power via solar panels, utility costs could be cut substantially. This seems to be another case of where you can't fault the builders as much as the buyers; these large-scale builders can't be expected to fork out the money for the more expensive materials and labor if the market just is not there. It's sad when a green community plan doesn't pan out well in California--assuming the construction and the community itself were desirable. What does that say for how such a community would do in a less progressive state? Californians are often the leaders in taking chances to help the environment; I wish more of them would be the impetus for green building.

I was reading in the Evansville Courier & Press that BP has cut its CEO's (John Browne's) bonus for 2006, from $1.75 million to $1.74 million. This cut was in light of recent oil spills and safety lapses that overshadowed profits. Although Mr. Browne's basic salary rose, his total compensation fell by 28%. This was the second year in a row in which Mr. Browne took a pay cut.

As I read about this pay reduction, I was somewhat pleased, given that I am tired of reading about oil company CEOs making a killing from the fossil fuel market. At a time when the oil industry has become so volatile, in part due to the politics of many of the oil-rich nations, it seems to defy logic that oil company heads should be rewarded in such an extreme fashion. In addition, given the sky-high gas prices at times in recent years, why should BP's CEO be enriched so greatly? Further, when oil companies' infrastructure is aging and endangering the environment, why should the CEO be receiving a windfall? Moreover, why should CEOs like Mr. Browne (in prior years anyway) be taking such handsome compensation, when safety measures are failing--leading to oil spills and other problems that our nation has to then correct?

I was reading an article in the Economist called, "Burned by the sun." The article discusses how the European Union has staunchly supported biofuels, despite some of their drawbacks. Just recently, the EU energy ministers endorsed a proposal "that biofules should make up a mandatory 10% of the EU's fuel consumption by 2020; the current voluntary target is 5.75% by 2012." The main issue with biofuels in Europe is that they are costly. To make up the cost, some European nations; Germany requires that refiners to "to blend a certain proportion of biofuels into their wares." England will follow suit by next year. The bigger issue is that biofuels can generate as much pollution as fossil fuels, say when coal is burned to produce the ethanol. Another problem with the pollution aspect is when large amounts of fertilizers are used to produce rapseed for biofuels. Although biofuels produced in poorer but sunny countries can be more environmentally-friendly, European farmers want to protect their own viability in the biodiesel market. Peder Jensen, of the European Environment Agency, states that it would be better to burn crops for fuel instead of turning them into biodiesel. But is this better from a pollution standpoint? I guess you would have to compare the pollution effects of biodiesel production to the crop burning to know for sure.

I was reading about how Shell and BP are investing more and more in wind power. They are also, to a lesser extent, investing in solar power. I was kicking myself a bit for still not diving into this market through investments. Although the big companies are starting to see the potential of alternative energy, or at least see these modes of producing energy as good PR with global warming becoming a key issue, there are still many, many small companies investing in wind power and solar power, as well. Some are small start-ups that have not yet gone public. Yet, others have gone public or on the verge of doing so. Now seems like the prime time to buy the stock of some of these companies. A bit risky, perhaps, since some of the wind and solar technology may never pan out or be profitable, but isn't this what investing is all about? In my mind, investing in alternative energy could be a win-win situation; the investor may make money on his/her investment and the market for cleaner power gets a boost, such that government subsidies may be less necessary. If there were an investment class on green power stocks, I would sign up right away. Or are there such classes already? If so, let me know so I can be in line for them.

I was reading an article in the Evansville Courier & Press about plastic bags. I expected that the article would discuss how much oil is used to produce these bags and in essence, how these bags only increase our dependence on fossil fuels. Yet, the article instead simply focused on the waste issue--they are clogging our landfills and don't easily degrade. If we could curb the use or at least, the constant disposal of these bags, perhaps we could keep our landfills free for other items and lessen our oil dependency. How hard can it be? It seems more an issue of convenience and bad habits than anything. Why does everything at the grocery store need to sit in a plastic bag with only one or two other items? Is this some grocery store requirement, so that items don't come crashing through the bottom? To me, it seems like we could start by having those bagging the groceries, group the items a bit more. Also, why don't more stores charge for the bags or add a tax for them? If they sold more reusable tote bags or other canvas bags specifically for groceries, perhaps people would opt for these rather than pay a bag fee or tax? At IKEA, plastic bags are now coming with a price and will soon be phased out altogether. You would think that this practice will also keep prices of the goods lower, since the company won't need to shell out millions for plastic bags. Although this type of measure might cut into our convenience and ease at which we take goods home, we can and need to adapt. I was surprised to read that Bangladesh has eliminated plastic bags, because of the environmental problems with their disposal. With all of the negatives we read about developing nations attitude towards the environment, I think Bangladesh deserves a lot of praise for taking this measure.

I was reading a Community Statement in the Evansville Courier & Press regarding ethanol. The writer, Bill Denham, raises some valid points about the importance of facing up to ethanol's current limitations before advocating its use to the hilt. He starts off by noting how much energy is needed to produce ethanol, which we all know is one of the biggest challenges for ethanol. Yet, his second point seems even more profound. He notes the difficulties with transporting ethanol, since it cannot be transported via pipeline as it corrodes the pipes. It must therefore be transported via trucks, which burn gasoline or diesel fuel. Further, he notes that we do not know the long term effects of ethanol on vehicles, as it becomes corrosive when exposed to oxygen. He doubts the staying power of ethanol, given that although the prices of corn have taken off, farmers still need to pay for the petroleum needed to create the required fertilizer, as well as all of the pesticides and herbicides used to produce the corn. When you look at it from the latter angle, ethanol doesn't sound so clean, either. I am not as negative about ethanol's future as Mr. Denham, as I believe that with demand many of these problems can be worked out, yet his letter does serve as a cautionary tale for looking at the big picture before backing something like ethanol without reservation.

I was reading an article in the Economist called, "Green sums." It focused on the fact that while even the President seems to agree that global warming is real, as do many members of the Senate, some environmental activists are leery of action that is too swift. In other words, the latter would like to build up strong legislation to combat global warming, rather than accept quicker compromises that might undermine the ultimate effort. An added challenge is that global warming legislation--such as instituting carbon caps--can be a contentious issue at a time when voters could be stirred up before the next election. For this reason, Congress could hesitate to do anything too bold. An added obstacle is the fact that there are those dreaded fillibusters in Congress, such as James Inhofe, who will be sure to do everything in their power to weaken or all together do away with any bills that would put carbon caps in place. Less controversial, the article notes, are bills to promote alternative energy, such as wind turbines. Many states have seen a boom in green power industries, which means that renewable power can be seen as making good business sense. In my mind, if we can take the alternative energy wave and really run with it, by passing bills in our country that require states to use 20% or more of it in their sources of electricity, we might be able to back-door the greenhouse gas issue. In essence, if we promote the means by which power can be created with little or no carbon emissions, the traditional fossil fuel sources may lose favor. Emissions of greenhouse gases might then go down on their own. I still think carbon caps are extremely important, but if Congress can't get such bills passed at this stage, let's work it from the other angle.