It’s campaign season again, and voters have a hard time picking out fact from fiction among all of the different ads, articles, talking heads, and political supporters, not to mention a who’s who of lobbyists and industry insiders the public never sees directly (though we’ll often see the effects of their string pulling).

This article is another follow-up on the issues surrounding energy costs, oil supply, and alternative forms of energy, with a focus on how that may affect the environment as well as the economy.  The main focus the public has is on the economy and how $4.00 per gallon gas is impacting their pocketbooks.  But the focus is also on the political implications and the fact that we are also facing a broader problem in global warming.  To follow along, you may want to read back on this past article, as well.

Luckily, the two don’t have to be exclusive, and policies abound that can help these two issues.  We can reduce consumption through conservation measures, find plenty of clean alternative energy sources (looking at you, wind and solar), and reduce our need for fossil fuels altogether in the process.  These measures will help reduce the cost of energy as well as help reduce the chances of catastrophic climate change.

False Debates, and One Healthy Debate to Have

1. Whether or not we should drill is not a good debate.  We should not drill because it would not impact prices for a long time, nor add oil to market.  The impact would be insignificant and after that impact, we would still be dependent.
2. Whether or not we should give more tracts to oil companies who aren’t using all of the current tracts available is a ridiculous debate.  Let them use the available oil fields first and we’ll see how that impacts the market.
3. Whether or not drilling is going to fix our problems is a false debate.  It will not impact oil and gas prices this year (though oil companies and mostly, OPEC, can manipulate prices to make it look as if it did) it would not bring more oil to market for about a decade and would not impact prices for at least as long, and then, just barely.  Meanwhile, we have to worry about global warming’s massive impacts worldwide, if we fail to give up our carbon spewing ways.
4. There are better alternatives than oil in wind and solar power, and that is the debate we should be having: how much money should we invest in such projects?

Obama Giving Credibility to False Debate

Let’s start out with Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama’s, recent swaying on this issue in saying that he would consider allowing environmentally safe oil drilling if it were part of a compromise to pass a bill for more alternative fuels.  We’ll talk more about why that position is bad public policy soon, but first, let’s discuss how this pander is harmful.  And Senator Obama, “Environmentally safe”?  Like safe nuclear power plants and clean coal, these oxymorons do not exist.

Is it a pander?  Well, maybe he’s trying to give some room for the idea to fall apart (the offshore drilling proposal is flimsy at best).  Maybe he’s calling the bluff of his rival.  But this position seems to be an attempt to garner more votes or to help standing in the polls, because public opinion is currently in favor of drilling for oil.  So give some ground with out going back on the original position.  Some say he’s calling McCain’s bluff, but more on that later.

McCain, following in the disastrous footsteps of Bush, Cheney, and Co., is all out supporting more drilling, so his position is worse, but Obama lends their position some credibility by saying he might accept it as part of compromise, even though his position still is that he is against it.

Playing Politics with Oil

Sure, I realize he’s in a presidential race here, but Obama also needs to stand his ground on this issue.  The fact is that the oil companies already have leases on land that have predicted amounts of undiscovered oil in the neighborhood of 34 billion barrels of oil. This is nothing more than a last frantic grasp for tracts of oil before the Bush boys leave office and while this situation is ripe for public opinion to be behind.  If Obama is calling McCain’s bluff and sees this as a way to let the idea be aired and to break, well then he has even greater political skill than is evident.  But I’m suspicious that he’s giving too much ground, giving too much credibility to what amounts to a stupid debate, all facts considered.

That Shame Blame Game

While I’m blaming and shaming, I’ll go ahead and blame the mainstream media for not questioning McCain’s parroting of the oil industry’s lines (manufactured to get their hands on public lands).  For not informing people of the caveats related to drilling, for not digging into the numbers and disseminating it.  For paying more attention to ridiculous political ads designed to distract from the issues, than they do on the actual issues themselves.  Blame and shame!  Shame for not seeing that these debates don’t stand up to the basic numbers and facts.

Shame on the American people who are not doing their reading on the subject and are weighing in on an issue they think they know about just because they know how much gas costs now and because they heard that more drilling will decrease the cost of gas.  Obviously, they want to believe that because of the mess their bank accounts are in.  The politicians and mainstream media won’t want to point their finger at you — you’re the customer, and you’re always right.  Wrong.  Get it together and do some analysis.  The public is smart enough to deal with the cold facts, and you deserve to have them.

The housing crisis, the inequality gap that has steadily increased under Bush, the cost of energy, commodities, and food, all increasing in price has put the economy on the brain.  However much the state of the economy is hurting your situation, if you’re going to cast your vote in a public opinion poll, you should make it an informed decision.

The False Debate of Offshore Oil Drilling

McCain wants to help the oil industry get their land for future drilling, handing out tax breaks, easy leases on land that they don’t intend to drill on anyway.  Obama may put strong restrictions on it and allow it if it can garner a bill that includes large support for renewable energy sources.

But why would the oil companies drill?  If they already have land and ocean tracts that they could drill on, they have been given the a-okay to drill, why would they not?  I really don’t have an answer on that one, but I can say that it does not look promising for them drilling in other offshore areas, when they have land-based oil fields (again, looking at around 34 billion barrels here) where drilling is easier and cheaper and less hazardous.

It’s a false premise, folks!  They’ll say they’re going to drill, and then get the ocean rights, and then maybe they drill on some of it, maybe they hedge and say they didn’t find oil then later, when they want to drill, by golly, there’s oil down theyahh!

We Simply Should Not Drill.  Yes, Simply.

Even if, and it’s a big “if” here, they were to actually go and drill on the new offshore spots some want to open up, should we not demand that they drill in those places where there is no holdup to drilling at the current time?  No.  Yes, the fact that they have land they could drill on but are not drilling on it renders this a false debate, but no, they still should not drill on even that land, because it continues the use of oil (and the dependency that comes with it) and pushes the world closer to the brink regarding global warming.

We should not drill at all.  Simple point is that it would take about a decade, according to experts, to actually get any of that new oil to market.  And, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), it would take until about 2017 for it to make even a small dent in the price of oil and gas, if at all, because it is such a small amount of oil, when compared to consumption.  And they’re saying (the EIA) that it may not make a dent until closer to 2030.

To paraphrase a great commentary on this issue: Obama has come out and said that if Americans inflated their tires to appropriate amounts, we could each save about as much on gas as if we drilled.  It actually would save about 12 cents per gallon on gas (for those who have not already done it), which is more than the six cents it is estimated the new offshore drilling would save per gallon (perhaps) ten years down the road.

Yes, Obama said this and people jumped his case, as if this were his energy plan.  Conservatives handed out tire guages at an Obama event, as a jab at his oh-so novel idea.  That the current president’s EPA and Energy Department both list this supposedly wild haired idea as one way to increase fuel economy, and is supported by many McCain supporters, as well as the fact that it is a real way consumers can help themselves immediately with the most basic of elements, known as “air” seems beyond those making fun of the idea.

Pundits acted all dismayed, even though Obama’s plan, which calls for 10% renewables by 2012, one-million plug-ins by 2015, and efficiency right now, when compared to McCain’s, “more dirty oil, more dirty nukes,” his plan is far ahead regarding reason and environmental and economic security.  Investing $150 billion over ten years into these measures will help spurn public investment as well.

Still, at least one writer believes Obama’s position is calling Bush and McCain’s bluff on drilling, saying that the oil companies don’t really want to drill, esepcially if tax breaks they had been banking on are removed, if it has to be done in an environmentally friendly manner (hello, more costly!).  They already have offshore tracts and on land that they could drill on but are not.  Bluffing…  Maybe Obama isn’t pandering so much as giving the other idea room to fall through the floor.

What’s the Plan, Then?

Obviously, some efficiency would help in both the transportation and building sectors.  But for energy?  I gotta hit back on the Gore plan to shoot for 100% renewable energy in ten years.  Lofty goal, we’ve discussed it here before, but it’s the type of big thinking the country needs.

People start seeing cheap, clean electricity, more available and able to be dispersed than ever before, you think that more and more stuff (like cars and light trucks) are not going to start taking advantage?  Of course they would use it!  And unlike with oil and coal, the more renewable clean energy comes onto the grid, the cleaner our economy becomes, the less dependent we become on foreign oil and fossil fuels, the more secure our energy infrastructure becomes.

Public and private investment is needed, as well as efficiency spending.  The jobs that could be created by this would also help put people back to work, and make for a stronger economy.

A Call to Action

The most important aspect here is an informed public.  If the public can get up to speed on this issue, if they can share what they know with one another, if they can demand that the mass media disseminate the information and that candidates state real facts that are not just industry talking points, we can have an informed debate about how to solve these major issues.  Share this article and others you come across with your friends and other contacts, using the email and other functions found below.

Yesterday, I posted a complex article, Removing the Fossil Fuel Blinders, which attempted to put together and make some sense of some of our toughest issues regarding energy and the environment.  It’s worth a read for getting a broad overview with some important details regarding these problems.

But today, I want to point readers toward looking at Exxon Mobil, an oil company that has seen record profits over the last several quarters, with the best profit ever over the last quarter.  It’s unsurprising, considering the higher prices people are willing to pay for oil.

The New York Times article I read made a point that stood out to me as especially interesting:

Exxon’s shares fell 4.6 percent, to close at $80.43.

And:

The disappointment from investors is bound to put added pressure on Exxon Mobil’s chairman and chief executive, Rex Tillerson, to search for new fields in politically precarious areas of Africa and the Middle East.

Hmmm, to search for new fields?  Well, the sitting President, George W. Bush, and the Republican Presidential Nominee, John McCain, would like to give oil companies, who are already seeing record profits, the biggest chance at lots more oil, further tying our economy to ever more oil.  This is not smart policy, it is political pandering.

Voters are smart enough to see the truth on this matter and to know that these policies are bad for the country, that it will take years (not months, as McCain has said) to see any oil, and by that time, other sources will have dried up or declined and the demand will have increased.

What do we do?  Starve those companies into investing some of their huge profits into clean, renewable fuel sources.  I said it in yesterday’s article, and I’ll say it again: those companies, like Exxon Mobil, can have a seat at the table.  Now, with demand increasing on smaller amounts of oil, and as CEOs see the need to continue to see growth, they may just see the light and the opportunity in green, clean energy sources.

This is a great opprotunity to push such companies toward a more sustainable future.  Don’t let them drill offshore or in new areas.  Let the supplies dry up.  And let’s go ahead with the technology we have and are developing for a clean energy future!

This past week, I published an article about renewable realists, and how they should remain strong, in fact, vigilant, in the pursuit of clean, renewable sources of energy for a sustainable future. Here, I will outline some interconnected stories to the issues of energy, climate change, and national security. We need well informed citizens to keep these issues in the public focus, with an eye for new, real answers that solve our problems rather than pushing them off for a later time.

Let’s start out with a summary of current circumstances.

Main Problems of the Current Energy Situation:

• Energy hurting the economy: Prices have gone up for oil, gasoline, coal, and electricity, to the point that both customers businesses of all walks of life are feeling the pinch at the pumps and the costs of manufacturing and transporting goods have gone up along with energy prices. The demand for energy continues to increase, and with it, costs.
• Climate Change: Our carbon-intensive collective lifestyle has pushed the world’s atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases toward a tipping point, after which we may see no chance of turning back, with melted icecaps, rising sea levels, flooding, millions of climate change refugees, the consensus of scientists worldwide is that life as we know it would be greatly negatively affected by the resulting rises in worldwide temperatures. Imagine great increases in flooding, ecosystem collapses, societal collapses, and even diseases that may be spread by pathogens able to live in warmer climates moving on to people who never had faced and built immunity to them. Scientists are predicting that there is great potential for the Earth’s poles to be iceless in summer months within the next five years.
• Global Security: The above two situations are compounded by their implications on national/world security. Being so dependent upon oil in general and foreign oil more specifically limits the options for how our nation acts diplomatically and militarily. Basically, it forces our leaders to act a certain way because their hands are tied by governments who control large amounts of oil. Add the implications of impending climate change over the coming decades, skyrocketing costs from higher fuel demand and dwindling supplies, the addition of climate change refugees, and border problems throughout the world — you will see a monstrous problem has emerged. When these constraints are placed on a great many world leaders, the problem is multiplied and all the more complex.

To see marked improvement on these interwoven issues, we need large energy sources that are renewable, very low or basically no-pollution, much cheaper than oil and coal (which have dramatically increased in price over the last decade), and something that improves the economic and security of the U.S. and the world at-large. The world is waiting for an economy able to take on the huge expansion of the available technologies of wind and solar power to make them more cost effective for smaller economies. Mired in expensive, dirty energy sources, it’s time for the U.S. to step up to the plate and meet that challenge.

Let’s discuss some news stories from the past weeks that are shaping these issues, ones that may have a significant impact on how the policy debates regarding these issues are shaped over the coming months, and try to find common trends and possible solutions.

Governments Subsidizing Oil

Matthew Philip discussed this issue in an article a while back, here on EHI, regarding the environment and oil, but the New York Times just published a story regarding other countries subsidizing oil (and its fuel products) for their citizens. This has a mixed effect for the U.S. the world. On the one hand, it allows people to continue to consume, because they can still afford the gas, diesel, and other fuels, because of the subsidies.

Therefore, their consumption does not decrease as prices increase, because their governments are cushioning the impact of those higher prices (the citizens don’t feel the full effect of those price increases). This is good in the sense that because it continues to keep demand for oil high worldwide (and leads to even higher demand), it forces policymakers, companies, and individuals in the U.S. to look at other alternatives, like electric cars or hybrids, running mostly off of a clean energy grid, powered by wind and solar. As the costs of contemporary fuels increase, those alternatives are literally more cost effective and overall more attractive.

This is bad in the short-term, and potentially long-term. As demand increases, costs go up, but because those people are able to increase demand relatively independent of price increases (because of subsidies), the demand continues to increase, increasing pollution and making even more dire national security situations, as unstable countries and political leaders who own large oil supplies and can control the flow through transportation channels as well, gain more influence in world affairs.

The solution is to move forward with clean energy supplies (wind and solar) and infrastructure necessary for both energy transmission and hybrid or all-electric cars to be traveling our highways or even becoming energy storage devices that charge when they are idle and can resell energy back to the grid during times when the sun is not shining as much or there is less wind in a certain area. Then, once that techonology is widespread and made cheaper by economies of scale, it can be distributed further, transforming the world’s economy and future status (by reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases).

Politicians for Offshore Drilling

Many politicians have recently called for offshore drilling, most notably President Bush, who lifted the federal moratorium on offshore drilling (though Congress would have to do the same for it to happen) and Republican Presidential Nominee, John McCain, who is also in favor of offshore drilling.

What’s wrong with this picture? It’s irresponsible and is irrespective of what experts have said about the situation. Experts have said that it would take about a decade before any of that oil would come to market. Beside that fact, more oil wells have come online under President Bush, only to see the price of oil triple. No, I’m not pinning the blame of increased prices on Bush per se, but I’m pinning him with pining to the oil industry and potential voters for McCain who are antsy for even a sign of relief at the pumps. The very same goes for McCain, who we’ll discuss in more detail momentarily.

Such shortsightedness is not far from becoming actual policy, if, for example, McCain were to win the presidency and push for such a policy. His calls have led to a big boost in campaign funds from the oil industry, by the way. But Republicans are not the only ones pandering for votes; Harry Reid is facing a split in the Democratic Party on the issue, as he tries to make sure the issue of high gas prices doesn’t hurt Democrats in the coming election. Such pandering show the opposite of the leadership that is needed on this issue, one that has been shown greatly of late by former Vice President, Al Gore.

John McCain’s Lies Regarding Offshore Drilling

McCain is flat out lying about the offshore drilling situation or is repeating someone else’s lies and should get his facts straight. Given McCain’s recent historical misstatements (read: lies) about how the Iraq war has unfolded, I’m not holding my breath on him getting his facts straight.

First, he states that oil drilling and transportation are safe, even though he himself had to cancel a campaign photo opportunity on an oil rig just last week because of (depending upon who you talk to) either an oil spill in the Mississippi River or bad weather (Hurricane Dolly). Safe? More on that later. McCain touts that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were able to cause any spills even though, according to Grist, the hundreds of spills, collapsed rigs, and damaged pipelines, due to these very storms, could be seen from space. By no stretch of the imagination has this proven to be an industry that is safe for the environment.

Second, McCain has stated, first that drilling would bring some psychological relief (this amid the ridiculous claims of one of McCain’s former top advisers, Phil Gramm, who stated that the U.S. was in a, “mental recession,” and that we had become a “nation of whiners”). After that didn’t fly as a credible assertion, McCain just started either lying or being played for a fool by repeating the oil industry’s lies about how quickly the oil would be able to come to market.

McCain has said that in some instances, within a matter or months, he is told by industry insiders, there could be more oil to market. Why does McCain get away with stating such lies, when the Energy Information Administration, under the current administration, has said, offshore drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices.” McCain, it seems, is full of it himself, played for a fool for repeating others’ lies on this issue, or both. It puts him in lockstep with Bush and Cheney on this issue, that is on the side of oil companies, who will lie to perpetuate an industry that is out-pricing itself against other, cleaner technologies.

Liars will be called what they are. We do not endorse one party or another on this website, and this should be a non-partisan issue, but has been highly politicized by folks in both major parties. On this issue, John McCain is a liar.

Gore’s Big Challenge

Al Gore has done a lot since leaving public office in early 2001. He has emerged as a strong voice to combat global warming, earning a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his activism. But he’s not satisfied with having boosted public awareness and support of better environmental policy regarding global warming. Now, he’s going further, enlarging the political space, as he says, so that politicians in office can discuss real solutions to these problems. Shame on both parties’ leadership for not taking bigger, better steps than calling for more oil.

Sure, Barack Obama, the Democrats’ Presidential Nominee, is not calling for offshore drilling, and is planning to spend $150 billion over ten years for clean energy sources, but where are his colleagues on this, and where are such ideas as a “Green Corp,” or other ideas. It’s a start, but it will take trillions, experts say, to create the infrastructure needed, and while the private sectore can and should kick in some of that total, more government funds will need to be shown to push forward the needed changes quickly.

Gore’s proposal, that is to change the U.S.’s electric grid over to 100% renewables in ten years, is buttressed by the situation we find ourselves in, which he succinctly states:

“When we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges — the economic, environmental and national security crises,” Mr. Gore said. “We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that has to change.”

So why are politicians in power not willing to talk about anything beyond cutting emissions a measley few percentage points to 1990 levels by some certain year (what a horrible argument to be having) or as that overachiever-in-chief, President Bush’s policy has been, to slow the rate of growth in emissions? Well, for McCain, it means pandering to a group of voters for votes and to an industry for money, and for some Democrats, like Reid, it’s failing to call Republicans on this bad policy that exacerbates an already burdensome problem, have a national discussion about this problem, and try to find a bipartisan way toward a solution. Both sides doing their share of pandering on this issue provides a lack of leadership for the country. Obama seems to be one of the leaders in his party willing to see through offshore drilling for what it is: a non-solution.

Gore has taken on the risk of opening up this big idea, and now that many say it is a great idea (though maybe overly optimistic) it is up for grabs for any politician or group of politicians to lock onto as a policy goal and take it all the way to reality.

What Else Contributes to the Problem?

• Voters may not be attuned to the long period of time before oil is actually pumped from the ground and that experts are saying that it takes years to even get to exploratory drilling. This makes this a situation ripe for pandering, which has happened, and then the other party has to decide whether or not to risk taking on the leadership needed, or also pandering to some voters, who the media are allowing to be lied to about the facts of offshore drilling, by a major party candidate for President (John McCain). This is a complex issue, hence the need for complex analyses.
• People get trapped thinking about being able to stick with their old economy, of burning gas for transportation, of wasting electricity, of using coal for energy, if only carbon can be sequestered or safely stored underground. Ethanol, which has had a backlash, still persists as a mandated additive in many states’ gasoline. Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama, is very supportive of ethanol, more so than John McCain, who changed his position from the 2000 election to now support ethanol. Obama’s stance is obviously likely due to his close ties to the ethanol industry, even having campaign staff who lobby on behalf of the industry. Breaking peoples’ feeling of sticking with the old is difficult, but necessary if we’re going to move the economy to a clean fuel future. Ethanol has its current problems, but should certainly be looked at as an alternative fuel, if it can be derived from non-food sources, like garbage or crop refuse.
• With the report last week stating that about one fifth of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas reserves are likely under the arctic ice cap, and near the edges, which may soon be accessible (ironically due to global warming) people may stick with the attitude that drilling more will solve the problem, because there is more oil. In reality, it postpones the eventual end of oil supplies for the problems to exist longer and to worsen before they improve.
• The cost of oil is down to about $120 from it’s peak of almost $150 a few weeks ago. While the price is still high and is unlikely to dip below $100 anytime soon, it tends to break the momentum toward more sustainable fuel solutions because people may see some relief, or hold out hope for such relief on the horizon.
• High prices of oil also can lead to even more drilling, often in areas where it was not worth it to do so before because of the associated high costs, so now oil companies are drilling in places that were previously not profitable to drill in (like parts of the Canadian tar sands).
• Oil is not safe, and oil companies do not follow proper precautions. One of our worst ecological disasters ever, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, recently had its punitive damages reduced from what once totaled $5 billion to $500 million. And such pandering to an industry that can afford to pay for the damage they have done, even over a twenty-year span, if not within a year, should have to do so, as this would deter future careless hiring practices and other precautions not taken, both of which contributed to this disaster. And don’t forget Grist’s note, above, of the hundreds of instances of damage from hurricanes (which come by every year, by the way). The oil industry is more confident that they can get off easily when they make mistakes, and are therefore less likely to take necessary precautions.

The conglomeration of issues against the use of dirty fossil fuels, like coal and oil, can also work the other way, compounding issues that might favor drilling in the public’s eyes, these above points, taken together, may move public opinion toward more drilling, even though drilling in fact is detrimental to the main problems listed at the beginning of this article, the energy and the economy, global warming, and national security.

Solutions

There is no simple solution to the problems listed here, but there are examples of promising proposals, like Mr. Gore’s, mentioned above, to reach a sustainable future that could hold promise of solving parts of this issue.

For starters:

• Mr. Gore’s proposal to move to a 100% renewable electricity grid is realistic in its optimism, because the technology exists and we need the political clout and financial means of conquering this task. Energy transmission, smart grid technology, the harware for producing the energy, all would take trillions of dollars to produce over that decade, but we’re already paying similar amounts into other economies for oil. Transforming our fleet of cars to electric or hybrid electric is a large way to move toward this future. The prevalence of political cowardice is the main hurdle for this proposal.
• Fuel from garbage is a fledgling start-up arena full of small companies trying to commercialize the process. Because this would add little carbon to the atmosphere, it may be part of a future or a transition fuel, similar to the role natural gas could play.
• Boone Pickens, an oilman from Texas, has begun a plan and even spending millions on advertisements to buttress support for his billions of dollars invested in both wind farms and transmission lines to move electricity in Texas from rural areas to urban ones. Texas State is slated to spend about $5 Billion on transmission lines, as well, further moving the state toward a sustainable future, and showing that this can be done with both public and private investment. Look for Texas to be an example for other states, or the nation on a whole, to follow, on the energy crisis.
• Opportunities abound to transform our transportation, from having more electric or hybrid cars to increasing public investments in public transportation infrastructure, making it safer, faster, more accomodating, and available to more customers.

From reading this article, you may be more distressed because of the complexity of the issues here. But, really, that is only because it is a lot of information with a great deal of confounding factors and players, some of whom add to the confusion with disinformation campaigns (I’m looking at the coal and oil industriees, and their political lackeys). Even Mr. Gore said, from the quote above, that the situation is, “deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges — the economic, environmental and national security crises.”

“Deeply ironic in its simplicity.” Yeah, it is. And what does it come down to? Try to separate those who want to do something new from those who want to do more of the same. More of the same is using more oil, drilling for more oil, and not putting the necessary political support behind drastic measures needed to alleviate the problems listed above. If you undermine the need for oil by finding other sources of energy for growing economies, the influence of those polical actors, large oil companies and nations controlling huge amounts of oil, is also undermined, and that is one of the greatest benefits to look forward to in a attaining a more sustainable future. Those nations and oil companies can transform and earn a seat at the table, also, by becoming active partners in moving toward renewable sources of clean energy. Just look at Boone Pickens.

Again, I say, renewable realists, remain vigilant!

The actually not-so-harsh reality is that the U.S. and the rest of the world needs to switch over to more renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind.  While high oil costs have generated a lot more discussion of and support for greener alternative energy sources, some will undoubtedly pish posh the idea that we have to switch — anytime the price of oil recedes, just a little bit, you can expect some brainy-hack to tell you that the second oil age is here and that everyone can quit talking about alternative energy, because, “it’s just too costly,” even though we could spend the same amount over the next ten years that would have been spent on oil on alternative oil.  Pumping up our economy, instead of pumping oil.

Really not a harsh reality…

No, it’s not a harsh reality we fact, though.  Many of our political leaders may lack the gumption to move toward a more sustainable future (or at least to move quickly).  However, a past political leader, Al Gore, is calling for the U.S. to move to 100 percent renewable electricity within ten years.  Sure, he’s not in office and so has little to lose by making such a proposal.  Yet, he still has the voice of major political figure in the U.S. and is putting forth a realistic, optimistic goal.

And why shouldn’t he?  John F. Kennedy challenged the country to support putting a man on the moon within a decade, and we didn’t exactly have the means to do that at the time of that proposal.  However, comparing Gore’s proposal to that of Kennedy’s is not fair to either proposal or messenger.  We have wind turbines and solar panels.

We have the ability to employ large number of people producing, installing, and maintaining such a system, including the hardware that generates the electricity and the grid that would support the broad range of area such systems would span.  Compare that with buying oil on the world market and you can see that jobs at home transforming to greener energy is easy.

An oft-quoted figure is that enough sunlight hits the earth’s surface in forty minutes to generate enough photoelectric current via solar cells to power the earth’s electricity needs for one year.  Wow!  Granted, we cannot cover the earth in solar cells, but we could place them strategically in a lot more places than we currently do.

Remain Vigilant

People are waking up every day.  Not just to their alarm clocks, but to the earth’s alarm systems, saying that we need to switch to renewables because:

1. The earth cannot sustain and withstand the abuse due to carbon and other elements being released into the air, rivers, lakes, soils, and seas: toxic environments and global warming
2. There is not enough nonrenewable fuel stores for everyone’s needs indefinitely.  The costs go up, and the amount available always falls.
3. Finally, it’s making better financial sense to do what is possible — it is well within the means of our scientific and financial abilities to do what Mr. Gore has proposed.

So go out and talk this up — don’t cave in to people telling you that it’s a pie-in-the-sky idea that never could gain traction.  Stay educated, discuss the issue, and give it the power of public support that it needs.  It is a solid proposal, maybe a stretch goal, but nonetheless, we as a nation should shoot for greatness, and this would be a great example of leadership for the rest of the world to follow, even if it takes us twelve or fifteen years.

Ever cook with a gas stove? How about a gas grill?  I have used both, and there is one noticeable difference in the way that these two cooking appliances are lit at the time of ignition of the natural gas that makes me cringe.

So what am I talking about?

Not for all gas stoves and ovens, but for the great majority of them, they are lit by the pilot light, which is just a small flame that remains lit all of the time, burning a small amount of gas at all hours of the day.

I cringe at those lit using a pilot light instead of an electrical spark, because that flame burns gas constantly.

As an aside, if you’re a gas stove user, you know that if your pilot light goes out, you are likely to smell the natural gas in your home.  Furthermore, if you don’t have another pilot light somewhere else to burn off some of that gas, and it is allowed to continue to build up in your home, you might eventually get an explosion like one seen in the Ed Norton character’s apartment in Fight Club. Or at least that’s what we see happen in the movie (see video at the end of this article).

But how much gas is actually burned by a pilot light?  Well, I did not know that particular figure, so I did some research.  I had very little success finding concrete numbers, but that’s mostly because that would vary according to many conditions and by individual appliance.  But to give you an idea, according to Wikipedia:

In domestic heating systems with pilot lights it has been estimated that on average half the total energy usage is from the pilot light, each pilot light using from 240–500 W of gas (8–16 GJ/year).

The Wisconsin Public Service Corporation provides this online calculator to estimate how much gas your  pilot lights are using, as an option among all of the other possible gas burners in your home.  You may be using a great deal of gas up every day, every year, with each passing gas bill, in large part to pilot lights.

So, what can I do about my own situation?

A much better way is to have an electrical ignition, like the ones typically found on most gas grills.  It’s also available on some gas stoves.  Gas is energy-intensive to extract, it releases some carbon dioxide, and it costs you money to burn!  It would be worth one’s while to buy a gas stove with electrical ignition the next time you buy one (or opt for electric!).

Cooking is energy-intensive, but as our economy hopefully makes the move toward renewable electricity sources, electrical appliances will show their worth even more, pilot light aside.  In short, Our pilot lights are just not necessary.

Also, as noted on the Ideal Bite, you can also save by turning off your pilot lights for gas fireplaces or heaters for those months during which you are not using those appliances.

Just be sure to also shut off the gas supply to those appliances for those times, and do some reading or talk to your gas supplier if you have questions or concerns about how to do this safely.  Get informed first, then tend to the problem.  If at any time, you smell gas, you should stop, get of out the house, and call your gas supplier for instruction.

And, just for fun, here’s that scene from Fight Club – I love the fly-through graphics:

You use your phone, computer, Ipod, or increasingly, your iPhone or Amazon Kindle to get news, check stocks, look at the weather, to buy and listen to music, read or listen to books and magazines, and any number of other functions that at one time, were chiefly available in paper formats, if at all.  Some, like the iPhone, can bring you the entire internet.

You can do these things when and where you want, provided that you have remembered to charge your device, you remembered not to leave it on the seat next to you on the train (drats!), and you have paid your bills for the services on time.

They Use Electricity, however…

Sure, these gadgets, and let us not forget the television and radio, as they have not yet gone to the wayside, are all using electricity.  But while they are using electricity, which is still, in most cases, the result of a carbon-intensive production process, water and chemicals are used in the production of paper, not to mention the trees that are cut down for the purpose.

According to this AboutMyPlanet article, regarding newspapers’ impact on the environment,

Nearly four billion trees worldwide are cut down annually for paper alone, representing about 35% of all harvested trees. However, many of the trees used for paper come from tree farms, which are planted and replenished solely for that purpose.

And further,

The U.S. Toxic Release Inventory report released by the EPA states that pulp and paper mills are among the worst polluters to air, water and land of any industry in the country.

Again, yes, while these gadgets bringing evermore news and information to our fingertips at a faster pace, still do cause pollution by demanding more electricity, making and even recycling paper is a carbon-, chemical-, and overall environmentally-demanding process.

Production and Life-cycle of Newspapers

Making newspapers and having people read/use them is difficult to turn into an envirohumanly friendly process, even when it is recycled and bleached without the use of chlorine.  Printing presses use electricity to print the newspapers and trucks haul them away for distribution.  After a user is finished with his or her paper, it is hauled away by a truck, whether it is headed to a recycling facility or dump.

So, If You Haven’t Already…

Dump your newspaper subscription.  You can get much more current news from free online versions of several newspapers, cable news sources, and blogs (like this one!) using a desktop or laptop computer, Iphone, Amazon Kindle, or other such device, without the paper waste.

You’ll be using more electricity personally for reading your news, but you can tailor your experience to your specific interests, there’s much more for you to read if you should want or have the time to kill, and you do not have to buy the whole paper, which, let’s face it, (for most of us) contains a lot of stuff in which we simply are not interested.

Devices Will Be Greener

For these reason, we urge you to consider dumping your newspaper subscription (as if you still have one!).  One last thought: paper is likely to continue to come from trees and recycled sources, and the massively polluting aspects listed above are unlikely to change.  But remember that electricity should undergo a major change in the coming years: hopefully we move to carbon-free electricity!  And don’t forget that manufacturers are looking at ways in which they also can make devices even more energy efficient.

Printing a single page or piece of information from a web site is not always the easiest thing to do, despite the simplicity of clicking the printer on your tool bar. Many times, I only wanted a single piece of information (maybe a confirmation code, phone number, address etc.) but I don’t want to use the “Print Selection” option as the formatting of the page may be thrown out the window.

So instead we are often left with just clicking print, which while it might look like only one page’s worth of information, your printer spits out 3-4 pages with 2 through 4 containing the footer or some other worthless piece of the site (read: advertisements – barf!).

Yet another method for becoming “Greener Under Twenty,” is to use power strips for some of your electronics. This project is yet another that both will cost you less than $20 and take you less than twenty minutes to complete.

Next time you’re at a store that carries them, pick up one or two power strips, depending upon your needs (discussed below). Basic power strips range in cost from $5 to $10 normally.

Why use power strips? Many electronics, including televisions, microwaves, chargers for our phones, PDAs, and Ipods, continue to seep power from the outlets they are plugged into even when they are turned off or when we are not charging our phones.

Here’s our first Greener Under Twenty tip: convert some of your lights over to compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).

CFLs can actually be somewhat costly, so if you have a great many bulbs, be selective. Chances are, you can identify four or five bulbs that are prime candidates for replacement and can do so for under $20 at your local home improvement store. Picking them up while shopping and replacing your incandescent bulbs should take you less than twenty minutes.

At a few dollars each, and only replacing a handful of bulbs, you can easily stay under $20. Also, attempt to find a deal or coupon you can use for maximum savings. Remember, these save you money over time.