I wanted to bring to readers’ attention a new vehicle that might revolutionize travel in cities. The PUMA! You’ve probably already heard about this by now. The concept seems on the surface to be a rather brilliant attempt at tackling the smog and congestion problems posed by motor vehicles.

General Motors (GM), known for making such gas guzzlers as the Humvee (Hummer and H2), has teamed up with two-wheeled personal transporters, Segway, to produce the PUMA, a vehicle focused on, “Personal Urban Mobility and Accessiblity.

It’s great to see GM move away from over-sized vehicles.  Also, SegWay, whose product has, to me, seemed to have held such promise for a long time but not the results to match, to have maybe found a way forward into massive implementation of their technology.

Check out this video:

I want to call readers’ attention to this story published a few days ago in the New York Times regarding a method of enticing homeowners to install solar panels.

From Europe’s Way of Encouraging Solar Arrives in the U.S.:

Put simply, the idea is to pay homeowners and businesses top dollar for producing green energy. In Germany, for example, a homeowner with a rooftop solar system may be paid four times more to produce electricity than the rate paid to a coal-fired power plant.

This month Gainesville, Fla., became the first city in the United States to introduce higher payments for solar power, which is otherwise too expensive for many families or businesses to install. City leaders, who control their electric utility, unanimously approved the policy after studying Germany’s solar-power expansion.

Now, let’s get political

I’m sure many will rail against this type of, “socialism,” because they feel (I no longer consider it to be rational thinking, but rather a “feeling”) that the, “free market,” if allowed to work, will provide us with such necessities.

The, “free market,” hasn’t brought us widespread green energy use.

Likewise, the, “free market,” didn’t bring us:

• The current, now-antiquated, once state-of-the-art energy grid
• The current, now-antiquated, once state-of-the-art railway system
• The U.S. Interstate Highway system

How will regulating carbon dioxide affect the cost of burning fossil fuels?

The New York Times reports that the Obama Administration’s EPA is expected to begin regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

The story begins:

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The story also stated that the change could have far-reaching implications

T. Boone Pickens, formerly an oilman, if you can formerly be one, is pushing forward with his plan to move most of the U.S. natural gas currently used for electricity over to the transportation sector, using it instead for cars.

It is a cleaner fuel, he says, plus, he says the fuel that is taken from electricity production (the natural gas) can be replaced with wind farms.  Pickens also notes that the U.S. has a great deal of natural gas, and even Al Gore has said (at least in his recent Meet the Press appearance) that he likes Picken’s plan and that the natural gas would be a good fuel for the intermediary between carbon-spewing gasoline burners and sustainable, all electric or hybrid vehicles.

On his site, Pickens lines out in about a 5-minute video (the text can be viewed here) that is one of the best short videos I have seen a while.  It succinctly tells, in layman’s terms, the problem he’s trying to work toward a solution on, and what the steps in his plan entail.

Matthew Phillip sent me a link to the Honda Civic GX you can buy that runs on natural gas.  Just make sure you have access to natural gas filling stations before you buy!

And how do you do that?  Check out this handy tool for seeing if you have accessible compressed natural gas fueling stations nearby.  Just enter in your location for a map of fueling stations in your area.

I like Pickens plan because on the economical and the environmental levels, it’s much better than what we’re currently doing and is a big step in the right direction.

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.

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!

We’re not here to talk about all of that junk, but all of that in your car’s trunk.  The advice herein will likely save you money and improve your envirohuman impact.

As is often the case with improving one’s envirohuman impact, the math required is not only addition but multiplication. Travel is another case where multiplying the effect of your actions will likely yield a better indicator of where you could easily trim your negative impact.

With travel, the big multiplier is often the distance traveled. Let’s say you travel an average of 300 miles a week in your car (you commute and use your car for errands). In addition to the normal gear found in your car, you have left your hiking bag in the trunk since last summer. You don’t need that space for anything (typically) and you never know when the mood will strike you to take a hike (you tell yourself).

Seems harmless enough, anyway. Simple calculation will show us that if you tote an extra ten pounds of gear in your car, that’s equal to unnecessarily moving 1.5 tons one mile each week (300 miles X 10 lbs. = 3,000 lbs moved). That’s equal to moving 78 unnecessary tons of gear one mile each year.

And that’s calculating by only having ten extra pounds in the car.  If you have fifty pounds extra (some of us are looking down at our stomachs) with gas prices at the highest ever in the U.S., you would do well to cut out extra weight in your vehicle — folding chairs, baseball bats, the tools and excess wood you left after helping a friend with a project — it all adds up to extra weight that you essentially are paying for your car to move.

And all that junk inside your trunk (your hump.  your hump, your hump, your hump) might be a place to cut corners, too — (Check it out!) it costs money to eat, it costs money to haul “that junk” around, and despite what some will tell you about the sight of having a little too much back there, it is in fact, “unhealthy” to be overweight.  All insensitive joking aside, if you find yourself a little overweight, losing a little by moderate exercise and slowly decreasing your caloric intake to a healthy level (discuss this with your doctor or a nutritionist) could help both your gas mileage and make you a healthier person, less likely to develop heart disease or diabetes.  Food production and transportation in most cases has a significantly negative envirohuman impact as well, so eating less helps in that respect, also.  As if you need one more reason, having healthier eating and exercise habits can also be better for the environment.

And the environment pays, too! Burning through extra gas hurts your pocketbook, but it contributes to global warming and pollutes our environment as well!  So if it totals fifty pounds of unneeded weight average in your car over the course of a year, it’s like moving 390 extra tons one mile every year.  Depending upon the efficiency of your car (and driving habits), that could represent a lot of gas money, but also a whole lot of carbon dioxide and other gases expelled from your tailpipe, into our atmosphere!

Another way to look at it? Think of it as driving one ton an extra 390 miles every year.  So it might be pretty close to you driving an extra week every year, if the extra gear totals 50 pounds.  Whatever your average gas cost for a week of driving would be close to the cost of driving that extra weight around with you every year.  That’s costly for both you and the environment!

Action item: clean out the extra gear in your car. No, don’t remove needed tools, flashlights, and other safety gear you might need if your car breaks down or if you have a flat, but that baseball bat, folding chair, hiking gear, or other stuff you leave in there as a matter of habit should all be asked of it, “do I really need this in my trunk?”  Check not only in your cargo area, but the inside of the vehicle might also have extra unneeded gadgets that you might do well to leave at home.

The best way to improve your envirohuman impact via your vehicle is to leave it at home more.  Consider walking, biking, and using public transportation more, or even giving up your vehicle completely and using a car share program when you feel you “need” a car for a task or errand.

We all see the constant stream of news, commercials, and websites claiming new ways we can and should green our lives (hey, you’re on one of those sites right now!), but it can get difficult to discern from that, or rather, sift out of all of it, a few tips you plan to implement immediately to improve your personal envirohuman impact.

Here, I have compiled for you a list of five areas of your life for you to examine and begin making improvements to reduce pollution.  Ready?

1. Transform your transportation: If you can (and have not changed already) consider getting to school, work, shopping, and play by means other than your own personal vehicle.  So explore the opportunities of using public transportation, biking, or walking. If these options do not fit the bill all of the time, consider implementing them some of the time, so maybe you can walk to the store but public transportation may not be available to you, so you might end up driving to work. Also, the option of carpooling is available in most areas, so try a website such as e-rideshare or a slew of others.  Also, make sure your tires are fully inflated and do not accelerate and break suddenly.  With gas prices as high as over $4.00, if you are tired of filling the tank on your older car (or for many, SUV!), consider buying a hybrid or other more fuel-efficient car — it will pay you dividends for the less gas you use and reduced carbon footprint!
2. Change your household cleaners: I’m going to direct you to our rapidly increasing list of product reviews for specific products’ information, but concentrate on finding truly greener products, ones that list the ingredients on the label, and if you have the time, investigate the safety of those ingredients, an area where usually, Wikipedia can help.  Concentrate on finding one quality “green” dishsoap, laundry detergent, and all-purpose cleaner, looking for natural, petroleum-free, plant-based, biodegradable products, especially, and you will be well on your way.
3. Greener thinking by greener reading: Begin frequenting a green website that can offer you daily news and tips related to your new, green lifestyle to offer you encouragement and continued ideas for little ways to live a more environmentally-friendly life.  What does this do for you?  While websites like Grist and Tree Hugger are great, and rather all-encompassing, for some, it can feel almost like too much advice and tips.  You can count on EnviroHumanImpact to provide you with something everyday that puts you in a greener mood, including tips, our different series of posts, like Greener Under Twenty, can give you realistic, simple life changes, usually for less than $20 in fewer than twenty minutes.  EHI provides, “just enough,” rather than more environmental information than you can possibly read in one sitting — and we will not overflow your RSS feed everyday — typically one or two per day from us at EHI.  You can join our RSS feed for a daily dose of information and advice.  Plus, reading a green-focused website will keep you on track toward a more sustainable lifestyle!
4. This one is easy!  Save some energy, money, and the world from significant amounts of pollution by switching over to compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), which now can be recycled at Home Depot!
5. Speaking of recycling, if you are not recycling, then you should be.  Find ways at work and home to recycle paper, metals, plastic products, and organic matter!  It is highly energy- and environment-intensive to extract raw materials from the earth, and it is in most cases better to recycle your garbage.

The rest of the EnviroHumanImpact staff and I have discussed this topic ad-nauseum but I think it deserves some attention here.  Hopefully, this can establish some groundwork for many following stories and commentaries on what is an incredibly complex topic.

The main question I’d like to pose is, “Is $4.00 per gallon gas ultimately good for the environment, the economy (particularly the U.S. economy), and you the consumer?”

What’s causing the massive increase in the price of gas?

Let’s answer first why we have $4.00 per gallon in the U.S. in the first place.  Most economists and laymen alike will tell you that it boils down to two main things: 1) Global Demand: Rapidly increasing world demand thanks to explosively developing countries such as China, Malaysia, India, Tawain, Brazil, and the list goes on and 2) Market Speculation: Speculators on the world markets bidding up the prices in order to profit on the commodities markets, specifically crude oil.

Global Demand vs. Prices

So how about those emerging markets?  Well, they’re on their way out of the stone-age and into the modern era, going straight from third-world to first almost overnight!  So with literally millions more people able to afford automobiles that are increasingly available with the needed fuel and road infrastructure in place and expanding, it not just U.S. consumers using the gas anymore.  But as we’ve seen in the U.S., as prices increase, demand feels the squeeze, right?

According to an article at CNN.com, demand for gas actually fell in the U.S. this March by 4.3% year over year.  How about a little perspective? That’s the first time the month of March saw a decline since 1979 and the greatest decline (4.3%) of any month of the year since 1942!!!  So the economy works, prices rise and demand falls.  Once demand falls, prices should realign and come back down, correct?

Wait, demand fell in March by over 4% when the price of a barrel of oil was between $100-$110 per barrel and since then, we’ve seen oil peak at over $140 per barrel!  So where’s the disconnect? Well, surely there is some speculation; however, until the last week or so, many of these developing countries had remained committed to providing their residents with cheap fuel using government subsidies.

So as prices increase in the U.S. and around the world, those countries’ demand has decreased but in many of them, prices just have not increased like they have in the U.S.  Their demand does not go down because their prices have not gone up! Their governments know that in order to foster their rapid growth, cheap fossil fuels are essential in the short term, similar to the subsidized building of railroads and interstate highways in the U.S. (and the subsequent maintenance).  Well, that is until they begin to basically bankrupt those governments in the process.

For instance, according to an article on Forbes online, Malaysia is a net exporter of oil and subsidizes its fuel to the tune of over $16.5 billion a year, or approximately four times the combined budget for national defense, education, and healthcare!  Well, with crude oil between $130-$140, they just cannot keep it up forever, so they just raised their price of gas by 60 cents per liter, which is an increase of about 40%.

Who else has felt the heat and changed their approach on fuel subsidies?  Only China, India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Tawain and Pakistan!  Obviously, some pretty major world demand drivers are starting to take action on reducing their subsidies.  All the while, many of these countries are battling rapid inflation,  as high as 25% according to some experts!  It will be very interesting to see if world demand decreases as more of the subsidies are removed, hopefully (at least from U.S. consumers’ perspectives) resulting in a decrease in crude prices.

Don’t forget about Speculators

While some economists will claim that the 20-30% of the price of any good traded on the open markets is the result of speculation, it’s clear that speculators are playing a significant role in the price of oil based on the volatility of the commodity’s price.  It’s not just the actual users of crude pushing up the prices, it’s hedge funds, banks, and virtually anyone else with access to crude on the futures exchanges!  And because of its ubiquitous use in so many products and in the vast majority of shipping products and raw goods, oil’s high price has a wider impact on the economy.

But step back a moment and assume the role of these investors or “speculators.”  Granted hindsight is always 20/20 but consider the following and how they influence speculation (as opposed to actual supply and demand):

1. Wealth in numerous emerging markets is exploding for millions of people who are buying cars and consuming more oil and petro-products than ever before.
2. With new countries representing a larger percentage of the overall market, prices are less and less tied to just U.S. demand for crude.
3. While the price for crude literally skyrockets, these countries fail to feel the pinch as their gasoline prices are subsidized by their governments.
4. Top oil exporters, such as Saudi Arabia, have claimed in the past that their production capacity is maxed out; however, even with their recent statement (see link later in this article) to ramp up production, their “sour” crude is more difficult and costly to refine since it’s not “light and sweet.”
5. Countries like the U.S. refuse to drill in environmentally protected areas where billions and billions of barrels may exist, giving speculators reason to believe production will remain close to the same.  It is estimated that upon a decision to drill (certainly an environmentally contentious decision) that it would take ten years for any of the oil to reach the market.
6. From an investment standpoint, energy (especially crude) has really been the only sector bringing consistent positive returns over the past 6-9 months, compared to the overall U.S. market, which is down about 13% in that same period.
7. U.S. refining capacity has stagnated so that even if output of crude oil were increased, the amount of oil that the U.S. would be able to put to market would also be limited in the short term, meaning continued high demand on a tight resource.
8. Since crude oil is priced on the open market in U.S. dollars, the weakening of the U.S. dollar has significantly driven up prices for the United States

So again, assume the role of speculator and what reason do you have to believe that prices are going anywhere but up based on the global macroeconomic picture?  Without change in some of the above situations, the speculator’s main fear is the “bubble” bursting and prices dropping significantly overnight.  The question remains whether this is truly, “speculation,” or rather if the increased demand is being built into the price of oil.  Consider Iron Ore, which is not traded on the open market like crude but has also seen a 96% price increase over the last year.  Perhaps it really is just growing demand from emerging markets.

Changes on the Horizon

As mentioned earlier though, some of these points are changing or have already changed.  Developing nations are cutting fuel subsidies like tone-deaf American Idol contestants, Saudi Arabia has recently changed its tune on production capacity, and President Bush and many other lawmakers are making the very contentious call for U.S. drilling off its coasts and in ANWR.  Even if some of these never come to fruition (and perhaps some won’t from an environmental standpoint), they at least signal changing winds and may help to cool some of the rampant speculation that has seen little reason to simmer otherwise, however experts say a decade or more would pass before any of that oil could reach the market.

The big point here:  Investors (or speculators) are not necessarily investing based on current, actual supply and demand but where they see prices going based on many of the aforementioned points.   Ultimately, just signaling that any of these might change could be enough to curb their bullish betting.

What about the Environment?

So what does $4.00 per gallon gas mean for the environment?  Well, unfortunately, it doesn’t mean that less gas and oil is being consumed around the world compared to when it was at $1.25 because more people are using more oil than ever worldwide.

What it does mean is massive change in already developed countries, specifically the U.S., Canada, most of Western and Eastern Europe, among others.  Recent fuel prices have been a firm wake-up call to all U.S. consumers and businesses that our, “dependence on foreign oil,” is not just political posturing but a real and potentially crippling problem that must be addressed, because of the limits of the resource, not to mention the envirohuman impact of consuming it as if it were water.  Still, some persist in the idea that we should simply find more supplies of oil, even though it will in all likelihood remain extremely costly and supplies are ever shrinking as demand increases.

The answers: 1) technological innovation in the form of alternative fuels and energy, increased efficiency in cars (less weight), and cars that can run on electricity (which can be derived from clean wind, solar, and hydro- sources), 2) reduced use by consumers (already in progress), meaning a needed expansion in rapid mass transit, 3) better urban planning, where a consumer needing to save money on fuel literally has the option of public transportation, walking or biking to many of their destinations, and 4) infrastructural changes that will make hybrid cars, smaller cars, plug-in, and hydrogen cars all more than feasible options.

The last 12 months  have seen more attention to developing alternative energy by consumers, politicians, and corporations than ever before.  While much of it may be just window-dressing, much of it is not.  The economic viability of various energy projects may not have been possible with competing means (read: oil) as cheap as they once were, but with oil over $140 per barrel, these projects are seeing new life.

While environmentalists have called for alternative fuels and fuel conservation measures for years, it may just be the free market that moves the world into those fuels after all.  Better late than never for some, quite a bit late for others.  And the free market has yet to actually solve the problems of fuel shortages, ensuing increase in cost, and the associated pollution due to rampant fuel use and abuse (Hello, Hummer).

Whose Economy stands to benefit or be damaged?

The effects of $4.00 per gallon gas has left the world at somewhat of an economic crossroads.  We are in the middle of a gigantic shifting of wealth from heavy oil consuming nations to heaving oil producing nations.  Globe and Mail recently ran a fascinating article depicting what they call “The Dubai Miracle.”  Basically its all about how all of the “new money” is taking hold in these middle eastern oil producing nations.  The changes are, quite frankly, unbelievable.

Ultimately, it’s another case of the “haves” and the “have nots.” Or perhaps the “Have Oils” and “Have Not Oils.”

So, in the short term, countries like Saudi Arabia will see the most unbelievable economic boom of their long and storied histories while the U.S., Canada, and Britain will try to keep their economic heads above water until they can develop viable alternatives to oil.  Alas, the silver lining, consider it the new “Space Race” or rather the “Race to new Energy,” which will hopefully yield healthier, less polluting, and less dependent economies.

While the U.S. will hopefully make a renewed push towards alternative energy, which may or may not be subsidized by the government,  they won’t be the only ones, and many in the industry would rather oil remain king.  What we do have is an opportunity to innovate and develop the “next big thing” and hopefully prosper immensely from it.  Provided the world does not end in nuclear war, there’s always another round to be played, another inning to take, another quarter to conquer.  It seems pretty clear who’s winning right now (or perhaps just catching up), but the big question: Who’s got next?

What about You?

Finally, where do you, the consumer, the mom, the dad, the employee, the small businessman, or teacher fit in with gas at $4.00 per gallon?  Well, unfortunately, there is no easy short-term fix (assuming you’re not one of the “Have Oils”).  Sure you can cut back on your consumption of oil and gasoline wherever possible but for many, riding a bicycle to the office just is not an option.  Some will find ways to alter a diesel engine to reuse cooking oils at restaurants and others will purchase a more fuel-efficient car or use public transportation if its available.

So in the same way the company you might work for is trying to keep its head above water despite the price of fuel, you too can keep your head above water by focusing on simple ways to limit your consumption, whether by owning a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle or switching to non-petroleum based product alternatives.  You can use a reusable bag and reusable water bottle to reduce the amount of plastics, made from oil, you consume.  Even the little actions add up when multiplied across the population.  Encourage yourself and friends to support companies that are helping make the leap into the 21st century alternative fuels because their success just might bring the next “Dubai Miracle” back home to your backyard.

What do you think is causing the rise in prices?  Disagree with the author? Tell us about it below!  We love a good debate!