I was reading an article on Yahoo about President Bush's plans to address global warming and the emissions that cause the same. He called for meetings, starting in the fall, of some of the largest producers of these gases, such as the U.S., India and China. He also called for targets and goals to be formulated. Although this sounds good on the surface, as Bush seemed completely opposed to doing anything about global warming in the past, I wonder how much teeth this strategy will have in the end. I am picturing a lot of talking in circles, but no strict mandatory caps in the foreseeable future. After all, if Bush wanted to take a real stand on this issue, why reinvent the wheel? Why not just mimic the Kyoto language or commit to joining a Kyoto type sequel, once Kyoto expires? Or why not just look at what California and the U.K. have discussed regarding global warming? I'm always suspicious of the whole dialogue-type plans, since it often seems a way to simply avoid having to bite the bullet and make real changes. Is this just a way to delay for years real action and yet, look like these nations are actually doing something? Time will tell. Let's hope that when the new Administration in the U.S. comes in, the talking will turn into real action.

I read an article in the Evansville Courier & Press regarding Paul Newman's recent visit to a nuclear power facility. He stated that it was safer than military bases he has visited. He also indicated that it "exceeded [his] expectations" and that the plant was a good component of New York's energy future as it does not produce greenhouse gases.

My first thought after reading this was, how Paul Newman--an actor and all-around wonderful person who donates his business proceeds to charity--is equipped to judge the safety of a nuclear power plant. Does he have some qualifications as to nuclear power that I don't know about? To me, it seems a bit concerning when an actor's opinion as to the safety of a plant handling radioactive materials, is considered newsworthy. It may look safe, but how does one really know unless an expert in nuclear power makes the assessment? It seems that the nuclear power industry is trying a bit too hard when they try to promote their plants using celebrities. While it is true that these plants do not produce greenhouse gases, I'd rather hear from an expert that the plant in question is safe, before I feel okay about it. Plus, if we don't figure out the nuclear waste disposal issue, with the proliferation of new nuclear power plants, how can we say that nuclear power is a sustainable option for the future? Unfortunately, Paul Newman's news item did not put my concerns to rest about nuclear power. I'm still somewhat on the fence about this one, but I'm no more of an expert than Paul Newman.

I've been thinking about how some of the easiest changes can make a significant impact on energy conservation in the long term. For instance, I finally bought my own plastic coffee cup at Starbucks to reuse each time I go there. An added benefit is that I save 10 cents each time I buy coffee. Given the prices of $3.00-$4.00 each time, that will definitely add up to a cost-saving benefit as well. I wondered though, why did it take me so long to do this? I simply clean it out after I use it and carry it in my bag each day--big deal. When you count up all of the disposable paper cups and plastic cups that Stabucks and other coffee chains go through each day, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this adds up to a lot of energy consumption each day. Why don't these chains push people to buy reusable cups more? I like the fact that in Brazil, the consumers do not want to use the paper cups of Starbucks; they want to use ceramic mugs. Why is our culture so into the disposable? I guess it's because most of us are too busy to use a container that we have to give back; we want to buy our coffee on the go. That's where my resuable container comes in handy, since it is a travel cup. The other problem, though, is that we love our drivethru's, which makes it difficult to use our own containers. Can we actually park our cars and walk inside? If our ancestors could only see what conveniences we are reluctant to do without, they would cringe. It seems to me, though, that if we just adjust our living to inconvenience ourselves slightly at this point, we can perhaps prevent having to endure many hardships and greater inconveniences in the future, as energy consumption will surely have to become more limited.

A friend of mine was telling me about a shopowner who is interested in producing reusable grocery bags made of hemp. I always associated hemp with marijuana, but apparently, they are two different plants (albeit in the same family). At any rate, his idea was to produce the bags for consumers, who could buy several at a time and then reuse them each time at the store. The bags would be designed to fit on those turnstile (sp?) type of things, where the baggers usually place the plastic bags. I thought this was a brilliant idea, as the bags would be made to fit the packing system already in grocery stores and possibly eliminate the need for plastic bags in some stores. Even better, hemp is apparently a hearty plant, that does not need a lot of pesticides to grow. So, instead of cutting down trees for paper bags, we could make bags out of an easily grown plant--i.e. a truly renewable resource. Perhaps we could also start using hemp towels instead of paper towels. The list of possibilities goes on and on. Plastic bags use up a lot of oil and clog our landfills. Now really is the time to make a simple adjustment to reducing the disposal of these bags to aid our energy conservation and to free up some of our landfill space.

Are hybrids the new status symbols? Until recently, I had been feeling a little frustrated that those wanting luxury items were usually lured into acting inconsistent with alternative energy or preserving the environment--e.g. driving a Hummer (unless of course, you are Arnold Schwarzenegger and have one run on hydrogen). Yet, after reading about the new Lexus 600l h sedan, I was excited that this concept of luxury may be changing. The new Lexus is over $100,000.00 and is a hybrid vehicle. It has all of the luxury features that the elite buyers will want, yet gets good gas mileage due to its hybrid nature. The price tag alone means that few people will be able to buy it. At first, that sounds like a negative, because not all that many will be sold. Yet, in the end, isn't this the best thing that could happen to the hybrid? The wealthy will make the product have a certain cache, which will turn the middle class onto the notion that hybrids are desirable and something to aspire to have--e.g. how plasma televisions were not too long ago. Perhaps then saving the planet and avoiding fossil fuel use will become more in vogue as a whole.

I was reading about "green malls" in the May 21st issue of Newsweek. It appears to be another effort on the part of Chicago to claim the green city title. If they could only work on recycling more and promoting that concept, I might actually buy this concept. In any event, it is interesting that the mall notion is being tweaked in Chicago to be more environmentally friendly. The mall will have numerous bike racks, preferred parking for hybrid vehicles, use vegetables from a rooftop garden in its restaurant, escalators that slow when not in use to conserve energy and chargers for electric vehicles. Only "green" tenants will be welcome. Time will tell whether such malls will be the way of the future or whether they will be more hype. Hopefully, the mall will find a way to incorporate recycled materials and to avoid the unnecessary use of lights when the mall is closed or in open areas where the sun provides sufficient light. In other words, I hope that this mall is not simply a way for people to feel better about themselves but rather, a true example of a new way of life where energy is conserved, where clean energy is utilized and where expendable resources are reused and recycled.

I was reading the idealbite website for some green tips and energy saving ideas. One thing I must admit is that when living in a place like southern Indiana, being green isn't very trendy. If I were in San Francisco, or somewhere similarly eco-friendly, it would come naturally for me to use a canvas bag at the grocery store or to buy my own coffee container to use when I buy coffee, instead of the paper cups. I'm not much to yield to peer pressure, but when reducing, reusing and recycling are not popular, sometimes bad habits emerge. I do recycle my plastic bags and my paper, but it would of course, be better not to use them at all, if possible. Accordingly, I have decided that I need to take the plunge and buy a tote bag to bring to the grocery store and my own coffee container to be refilled when I buy coffee. If each person brought their own bag or container, we might be able to kiss all of those plastic bags and paper cups goodbye at some point. I suppose it's one thing if a bag or cup is reused for another purpose, but in most cases, people toss them after one use--or at least with the plastic bags, after they are maybe reused for a diaper or something. In any event, we need to reconsider our packaging and use of bags and containers as one way to reduce energy consumption and trash in our landfills. Just think of all of the oil (for the plastic) and trees (for the cups) we would spare from this alone.

I was reading this morning in the Evansville Courier & Press, an article entitled, "Is bayou future of natural gas?" The article discusses the huge investment being made in terminals for liquefied natural gas around the U.S. and offshore. The article touches on "environmental and safety concerns," yet doesn't really go into specifically what these concerns are. These terminals are a response to increases in natural gas prices and the need to import natural gas from overseas. In places like Louisiana, the gas can be plugged into pipelines that travel through states. The liquefied state occurs when "gas is cooled to minus 260 degrees and turned into liquid," such that it can be imported from other nations. In hurricane country, such as along the Gulf Coast, many look at these terminals as a good way of boosting a lagging economy and as a better alternative to "the rows of refineries and chemical plants" in other portions of that region. In my mind, these terminals are concerning, because they show a way in which we as Americans may become even more dependent on a fossil fuel, natural gas. Nonetheless, the terminals do seem a lesser evil to oil refineries and coal-fired power plants, at least given the relatively clean reputation of natural gas. Again, since the article doesn't delve into environmental concerns, it may be unfair to make this comparison. At any rate, I don't think you can knock these companies, such as Sempra Energy, for building the terminals. If people keep demanding natural gas, this may be the best means by which to meet that need. If it can be imported from stable nations, rather than the often unstable countries from which we derive oil, then it seems like a preferable alternative. This is especially true given all of the areas in the Northeast that rely on oil for heat. If natural gas can replace that oil in the short term, it's hard to fault that in my mind. Alternative energy is still the only long-term answer in my opinion, yet we need to fill the gaps in the short-term with something other than dirty coal and foreign oil.

Sometimes I get a little annoyed at people who claim to be very religious, yet refuse to recycle or take any steps to help the environment. If you believe that God created the world, then why wouldn't you want to take care of it? Finally, some churches are starting to tout the importance of energy conservation and being "green." One case in point is a church in Texas, which was consuming $250,000.00 worth of energy monthly before. The lead pastor arranged a more efficient use of the church's buildings and taught staff the importance about turning off lights and computers--simple stuff, really. Other faiths getting into the "green" act are the Quakers, the Jains, and the Episcopalians. Given the vastness of many churches and the waste of resources that occurs when these huge buildings are left powered virtually all the time, even when empty, some radical changes--even if fairly obvious--seem appropriate.

I saw a postal vehicle yesterday that was an official "U.S. Government vehicle." At first glance, it looked like any ordinary SUV, but I then noticed it was a flex-fuel vehicle. I contemplated the significance of flex-fuel in southern Indiana, and at this point, it does not seem very significant. To my knowledge, there is not one E-85 pump in Indiana for a couple of hundred miles from where I reside. Accordingly, these flex-fuel vehicles are almost always running on gasoline--unless they are filled up say in Terre Haute, Indiana, which is at least 2 hours away. I had high hopes for E-85, especially when I saw the ads with young people in corn fields, talking about how ethanol would be clean and free us of our gasoline dependence. Although I still have some high hopes for ethanol, I find it ridiculous that southern Indiana is becoming the hotbed for ethanol production--which does aggravate our already bad air pollution problems--yet still fails to carry any E-85 pumps. Shouldn't people in the area be able to consume the product that is being produced locally? Why are we producing something, only to ship it far away--very likely in gasoline or diesel-run trucks?? Hopefully, if the ethanol craze continues, ethanol will be sold where it is made, along with places more distant from the production site. Perhaps the trucks that will ship the ethanol from our local ethanol plants can then go to a filling station, fill up on ethanol and then pick up more ethanol to be shipped out-of-town or even, out-of-state.

I was reading an article by Bryan Bender from the Boston Globe regarding the U.S. military's reliance on fossil fuels. I always thought of energy independence as good for our nation, given the volatility of many of the oil producing nations (and many of their dangerous politics), but Mr. Bender had me looking at this issue in a whole new light. In his article, he notes that the U.S. Department of Defense is the largest single energy consumer in the country. The Air Force alone, spends $5 billion on fuel--that's a lot of taxpayer money. The Army and Navy are not far behind the Air Force in this regard. More alarming statistics: About 80% of all material transported on the battlefield is fuel. Further, our military in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently using 16 times more fuel per soldier than was the case in World War II. The article brings to light the fact that our future national security is in real jeopardy if we continue to rely so heavily on fossil fuels. The hope is one day that our military will run on alternative energy, but that seems like a long time in the future. If we want to protect our nation and assist others in the future, we had better figure out a way to keep our military vehicles and weapons fueled. Otherwise, we may end up being more sitting ducks against other nation's threats. That is certainly not a position we want or can afford to be in.

I was reading an article in People about one family that had "gone green." They grew their own food and composting their garbage. One of the more telling parts of the article was when the woman in the family said she gave up paper towels. I had to think a bit about how many trees and how much energy is consumed when we use everyday products like paper plates and paper towels. If each of us just used cloth towels and regular plates, instead of the paper versions, just think of how much energy would be saved--not to mention all of the trees. I find that I use paper towels out of habit more than anything and that I could do much better with reducing my paper consumption. I pretty much refuse at this point to use paper or styrofoam plates at home, so I know I can work on the paper towels. I think it is time for a national movement of people to reduce paper consumption at home. Not only will we have less waste in our landfills but also, we will kill fewer trees. This is one of those small steps, similar to changing lightbulbs to fluorescent from incandescent, that we can all make to conserve fossil fuels and trees.

I was reading in the Evansville Courier & Press about our local utility, Vectren. Vectren has always been closely aligned with the coal industry, but it is starting to move more and more into alternative energy--and should be commended for the same. One of its latest projects is in Johnson City, TN, where its subsidiary (Energy Systems Group) is using methane as a natural gas substitute. According to the article, this project is one of the first in the nation to "use a membrane filtration system to process methane from a landfill and then transport it to a local VA hospital." Given the amount of energy consumed by hospitals, this project seems really innovative. The amount of methane being harnessed in this project is equivalent to the natural gas used in 5,000 homes per year. Although this project will in no way reduce natural gas consumption in the world on a grand scale, it certainly is a start. I am so thrilled to see Vectren start embracing wind power and methane. Now, if we could only get the company more interested in solar power....