I was reading about a solar company developing solar material out of aluminum foil, which is very light and can be applied to many surfaces. That versatility could be very key for the solar industry, as those heavy, expensive solar panels are not suited for every house or every person. Given our proximity to a large aluminum company, I started thinking about whether they supply aluminum to some of these companies. It would be a bit ironic in a way, given the antiquated way in which power is created to produce aluminum--a very energy-intensive industry. Coal is the power source of choice for this aluminum maker, given that it is cheap, accessible and can produce lots of power. The downside, of course, is all of the pollution and carbon-dioxide associated with this form of energy, a key problem in curbing global warming. I suppose we must not forget that there is no guilt-free power source, even if it be from the sun. Solar power relies on other industries, some of which in turn, rely heavily on fossil fuels. The hope would be that all of the clean power generated from these aluminum-foil solar materials would off-set all of the carbon produced from the production of the foil in the first place. Or perhaps, recycled aluminum, which is must less energy-intensive since it does not involve starting all over with raw materials, can be used for the solar foil. In any event, what would really make me thrilled would be if solar power could power the aluminum industry to make more products for the solar power industry. Perhaps then, we could really call solar power completely renewable and clean. I love the idea of solar power, but I would love it that much more if we could make some headway in powering the industries producing its materials from something other than fossil fuels.

I was watching ABC News last night regarding the orangutan (sp?) population in Asia. It was heartbreaking to watch these beautiful and intelligent creatures being slaughtered by those involved in deforestation of jungle areas. The reason for much of the deforestation was to clear land for palm oil plants, to be used in food products and biofuels. In other words, in our efforts to create green energy, are we wiping out a species of animals that are distant cousins to humans? The danger with biofuels, including those made from corn and sugarcane, is that they need lots of land to be grown and used for energy. In Brazil, it's a great thing that the nation has become less dependent on foreign oil, but is the Amazon being further threatened by the need to grow more sugarcane crops? We need to balance our desire to wean off foreign oil, with our consideration of how the biofuels will be made and the impact to the environment. Biofuels cannot be considered "green," of forests and species are being decimated in the process of producing them.

I was reading an article recently about Chinese coal-fired power plants, although I can't remember which publication it was. In any event, the article described a city that was an hour or two from Beijing, which has made a great deal of money from coal. The plus side was that many former peasants are now driving Mercedes and there are luxury items and hotels available now. One of the high-end hotels even has a large piece of coal in a display case, to remind the residents how they became wealthy. The big downside is mainly the pollution; one photo accompanying the article showed the coal soot and the residents covering their faces as they walk by. The article even noted how all of the coal pollution generated by China, alone, eventually migrates (a few days after being released) to the United States. We have enough coal pollution of our own to worry about. It's hard to blame the Chinese people for wanting to embrace Western goods and to some extent, the Western lifestyle, but it's also easy to see how unsustainable this new found wealth is. Someone told me recently how the coal mining practices currently in China are worse and less safe than those used originally in the United States. The U.S., India and China really need to work together on some serious emissions caps to limit all of the CO2 and other pollution entering our atmosphere from coal-fired power plants. Yet, when we all want the good things in life and the energy needed to obtain those things, how is this going to work?

I was reading an article about the drought in Georgia and Governor Sonny Perdue's comments regarding the same. Apparently, water has become so scarce that major cutbacks in water consumption have to be made at a staggering rate. One of the measures he advocated was for residents to use paper plates at least once per week instead of dishes that need to be washed---a "conservation" effort, as he called it. I can see the logic behind not wanting to waste water on dishes, yet I would hardly call using more paper and clogging landfills with tons of paper plates, a "conservation" measure. Obviously, people in Georgia may have no other option at the moment than using paper plates and cups (and plastic cutlery), if water use is to be curbed. Yet, I think the governor should stress that this is a temporary measure to deal with the drought and that the disposable mentality he is impressing upon his state's residents is not the ideal--and that it should be done away with once water levels return to normal.

I was reading an Associated Press article about the smog in Hong Kong over the weekend and that how the levels have become dangerous, particularly for the young and the elderly. Some older people had to keep a wet towel over their faces when going outside, to avoid inhaling some of the pollution. I read this at the same time as I was preparing a comment to the EPA regarding the strengthening the standards for ozone in this country. Right now, the standards for ozone pollution in the U.S. are such that they do not protect those considered 'sensitive' (like the young and old) in a satisfactory manner. Research has shown that in the cities analyzed, there could be 4,000 fewer deaths per year if the standards were strengthened. The EPA's own scientific advisory board plus numerous medical associations have concurred that the current standards do not go far enough to protect people against the effects of ozone pollution. Apparently in an effort to appease industry, the EPA has ignored these outcries and has left the standard too loose. Hopefully, the EPA will finally tighten the standards such that even those in 'sensitive' populations can be adequately protected. The irony is that when ozone is too high, industry and the economy can suffer, as is happening right now in Hong Kong. It may lose foreign investment and businesses in the future because of the extreme air pollution and many foreigners who may have considered retiring there--and consequently, spending lots of money there--may go elsewhere. The scary part was that when these very high levels of smog were measured, many industries had been closed for a week or more, apparently for some kind of vacation or something similar. What are the levels like when industry is going full blast? Governmental officials need to remember that industry and the pollution that goes with it, must be controlled in some respects, as wealthy companies and individuals may be deterred from locating in highly polluted areas. This can then result in the region degenerating into an industrial wasteland of sorts.

I was watching my new favorite show the other night--"Living with Ed" on HGTV--and was surprised to see Larry Hagman on the show. He said himself that it was rather ironic that he became famous playing one of the worst oilmen and now is "green." After I heard that, I assumed he had some energy saving features on his house, but was astonished to see to what lengths he has gone to, to use alternative energy. He noted that his energy bill used to be $37,000.00 per year and that now it is $13.00 (yes, thirteen dollars!) per year. The fee was the minimal amount to cover administrative fees and things of that nature. Rather than being off the grid, he is actually contributing to the grid in California, by having one of the largest (if not the largest) solar panel array for a private home. He is able to power five lower income homes in California with his solar energy and sells excess solar power to the local utility. It was amazing to also see how he has incorporated features such as sky lights and natural ways of airing his home (which is huge) to eliminate the need for many artificial lights and air conditioning.

I thought it was really incredible to see how someone with his celebrity has rather quietly embraced clean energy and has made a huge difference in supporting the solar power industry. His single home generates so much solar power that the local utility has paid him in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the energy. If only more celebrities or other wealthy individuals with money to burn would do the same, instead of simply doing ads or showing up at events for environmental causes, only to continue the status quo of using enormous amounts of fossil fuels. Not only has Larry Hagman taken a leap to support renewable energy but also, he has helped to supply energy to those less fortunate. He should really be commended for that.

I was reading an article about Algeria embracing solar power by making plans to install numerous solar panels in the desert and to export some of the electricity generated to Europe. The article noted that until very recently, the countries near and around the Middle East tried to torpedo any plans for alternative energy, given their reliance on money generated from the oil industry. Perhaps one day, there could be thousands of solar panels in the Sahara, generating clean power for the Middle East and Europe. Perhaps also, other countries with desert regions (including India) will also place solar panels in these otherwise barren areas and use them to generate fossil-fuel free power. Perhaps solar power will not be a major player in the energy arena for a long time to come, but even if it generates enough energy to power thousands rather than millions of homes in the foreseeable future, that would be a major improvement to relying even more heavily on fossil fuels.

I cringe each day when I read that states like Indiana are looking to exploit coal even more. People like Indiana's governor speak of coal as some form on "homegrown' energy--as if it were a renewable resource of some sort. He needs to wake up to the fact that with global warming a reality, we cannot simply continue to burn rocks from the ground to generate power. Let's take a lesson from other countries generating power with no fossil fuel use, like Algeria. If Algeria is more progressive than states in our nation, we really need to take a look in the mirror and realize that we are falling behind other parts of the world. If we want to keep pace with the rest of the world, we had better stop relying so heavily on a power source that was in vogue more than 100 years ago.