Our World and Everything in It

The U.S. has an overabundant supply of natural gas. We’re being told that it’s a fuel for the future. Other countries are creating cars that run on natural gas and the U.S. is losing out. Are we?

I heard on ABC news the other day that natural gas is going up 22% this winter when we use the stuff to heat our homes. Looking around at some of the country’s newspapers it appears the increase may be higher. Parts of Pennsylvania expect over a 33% increase, and Frankfurt, Kentucky claims that natural gas is up 70% from last year. If you’re wondering why natural gas is going up when it’s oil that’s high not the gas, and oil never seemed to affect the price of natural gas before, it’s because of demand.

So here we are again with a fossil fuel that has to be extracted, and boy are we devastating some beautiful places in America extracting the stuff, while demand continues to rise so the costs are getting out of hand no differently than oil. And we’re still screaming for offshore drilling for more oil? This should be a big kick in the pants to get away from fossil fuel forever. What is it we’re not getting? 

Natural gas prices weren’t all that bad until oil got so outrageously expensive. Industries that can either use oil or natural gas have switched to gas. Meanwhile, we started using more natural gas to produce electricity. Natural gas consumption always used to be predominantly in the winter months, for heating purposes, now because of industry and demand for electricity for A/C, natural gas prices aren’t fluctuating cyclically. They’re just plain going up and up.

Just dandy huh? We need to get off this merry go round and realize that in the future we must adapt to a potpourri of energy sources, like some wind, some solar, some geothermal, etc., or we’re just going to keep hitting the same demand wall.

Calling for the U.S. to move solely to electricity may sound like we’re putting all our eggs in one basket too but electricity is the one source of power that appears to know no bounds for it’s generation. All types of things can be converted to electricity. With the advent of the hydrogen fuel cell and PEM’s, electricity will have even more ways to keep us in power in the future.

We’ll soon be seeing a new media blitz from the coal industry because people are catching on that coal is not clean. The industry is throwing $30 million dollars into an advertising and public relations campaign under the name of Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC). But the list that follows are all polluters like Billiton the largest mining company in the world, or CONSOL the largest producer of bituminous coal in America. They just don’t have motivation to cut into that kind power unless it’s from the kindness of their hearts.

AMEREN, American Electric Power, Arch Coal, Arkansas Electric Coop, Associated Electric Coop, Association of American Railroads, Basin Electric Power Coop, BHP Billiton, Buckeye Industrial Mining, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Group, CONSOL Energy, CSX, Detroit Edison, Duke Energy, Edison Electric Institute, First Energy Corp, Foundation Coal, Hoosier Energy, Massey Energy, National Mining Assoc., National Rural Electric Coop, Norfolk Southern, Peabody Energy, Southern Co., Tri-State Generation and Transmission, Union Pacific Railroad, Western Farmers Electric Coop.

This group is using other groups like America’s Power and Clean Coal USA to advertise across the country to make their coal look green. So be alert. There is nothing new. There is not a new kind of coal plant that generates electricity with lower CO2 emissions. There is coal that has very low sulfur content. And sulfur content and other particulates can be removed by what is termed “scrubbers.”  That’s not new technology, but it will help alleviate lung problems. Until something drastically changes coal users like the cheap dirty stuff because everything else costs money. This is a good article about it from the Wall Street Journal: http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Clean-Coal-Oxymoron-WSJ.htm

In 2001 President Bush committed to more advanced clean coal technologies. According to an article on DOE’s website: “The Clean Coal Power Initiative is providing government co-financing for new coal technologies that can help utilities meet the President’s Clear Skies Initiative to cut sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants by nearly 70 percent by the year 2018. Also, some of the early projects are showing ways to reduce greenhouse emissions by boosting the efficiency by which coal plants convert coal to electricity or other energy forms.” Come on, 10 more years to just get sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury pollutants down? That’s lame. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/.

Not much is new with coal except for trapping the gas, and where to put it. Our Michigan CO2 well should be about full this weekend. It didn’t hold nearly enough liquid CO2. It’s not a solution. How many more holes are we going to rip into the earth? We have over 500,000 mines in the U.S. Many are old and abandoned. We have over 500,000 oil wells, many are done, fini. That’s a lot of holes in the ground. Will the earth heal quickly from the millions of holes we’ve drilled?
 

I ran across a good website that explains RPS or Renewable Portfolio Standards. A state’s RPS spells out what is being enacted within the state to lower the state’s dependency on fossil fuels through conservation and alternative energy initiatives. And it draws jobs—many, many jobs!  An  analogy would be that an RPS is like a state’s environmental resume for new green businesses looking for a home for their headquarters/operations.

So all RPS’s aren’t the same of course. An RPS must be tailored to the state. All states won’t lean equally on the wind, solar, or geothermal power mix that are major parts of a state’s RPS.  Some states will rely on solar more than wind, or wind more than geothermal power. An article that discusses Michigan’s RPS and how it already leaves solar out of the picture is http://www.photon-magazine.com/news_archiv/details.aspx?cat=News_PI&sub=america&pub=4&parent=624. That’s too bad because solar has been really good for me this winter in Michigan.

There is a lot of reading here and it’s very interesting. Twenty-four states have already established RPS’s and are experiencing a lot of job growth. Considering Michigan barely regulates its CO2 emissions, and keeps inviting more polluting industries into the state, I don’t find it surprising that Michigan doesn’t have an RPS yet. Of all the states that have suffered heavy job loss, an RPS should have been first on an agenda for our congress. Contact our reps. and senators to get moving on “green” job opportunities in the thousands in Michigan and cut the polluters loose.

The tax benefits to states that court “green” business is good also. The sercoline website below stated that in Nevada, one geothermal plant paid “$800,000 in county taxes and $1.7 million in property taxes. In addition, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management collects nearly $20 million each year in rent and royalties from geothermal plants producing power on federal lands in Nevada – half of these revenues are returned to the state.” In Iowa, “the 240 MW of wind capacity installed in 1998 and 1999 produced $2 million per year in tax payments to counties and school districts and $640,000 per year in direct lease payments to landowners.”

So having, as well as, advertising a good RPS will garner states more jobs, a greater tax base, and a much healthier environment while helping alleviate overall global warming. The big bonus: it entices more business to come on board, like Minnesota: “The 143 wind turbines in the 107-MW Lake Benton I project in Minnesota, installed in early 1998, brought $250 million in investment.”
 
Are Michigan’s tradeoffs to polluting industries for a few hundred jobs saved here and there being offset against higher health care expense due to bad air, or water pollution, and include the loss of new “green” jobs that bring more tax revenue, and entice more businesses to invest in Michigan?  I’d like to see that equation. I don’t think Michigan is heading in the right direction, except for the very temporary oil drilling blitz that will probably occur, whether we want it to or not. But at some point, our demand will exceed our supply and we won’t have oilmen in the White House to push that agenda any longer.
http://www.serconline.org/RPS/fact.html.

http://www.michigancleanenergy.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B43B4E9A9-4132-4A0D-A15F-39434E54B50C%7D.
 

I’m sorry to read that Michigan persists with pollution policy instead of sound environmental policy. We need to get the corporate friendly senate moving in a cleaner direction. We have an obligation in this state to at very least try to keep the water clean. If we keep goofing off, someone might decide we are poor stewards and should share the wealth and management of our water. Does adding more coalburners to the list of 19, including the country’s second largest in Monroe, sound like anyone here pays attention to health issues, future problems with water shortages, or the earth? The latest out of MI senate is a push to alter abortion issues in Michigan. That’s the big priority? People need jobs; we need a decent and moral economy. By moral, I mean we do our utmost not to disturb life in the process of living and producing.  A green economy can offer plenty of jobs but that ride is being held up either on a state or federal level and benefits the oil industry.

We know for instance about oil leases that have been sold in pristine areas and/or habitat for polar bears, seals and all types of birds. Drilling there is pending and the oil industry wants to get moving. It’s becoming obvious that placing the polar bear on the endangered list is purposely being stalled. All that is needed is a great motivator. Bingo, gas will go up beyond $4.00 per gallon shortly. We’re already being taunted by that forecast. People are expected to cry drill, drill, drill and to hell with the animals. And we’ll probably do that, instead of seeing the big picture and how we’re being manipulated by the utilities. Even Warren Buffet commented that we’ve been sticking straws into the earth and sorry but it’s a finite practice. We will eventually run out. We collectively had over 500,000 wells. Our demand is ridiculous, and growing and it all revolves around the same fossil sources.

Heaven forbid we advance in technology and perfect wind and solar power for the individual home, and make it cheap. Houses would stand-alone without need for utilities. It’s almost laughable isn’t it? We are street smart enough to know the powers that be won’t let that happen. Anyway, our airwaves will be controlled shortly. Can’t even get free air anymore, besides there is that ever lovin entertainment/sports world that’s always going to charge too.

We could practice conservation. We could develop an RPS for Michigan, (more on that in another blog), which would entice green developers to come here. I’ve been saying this for quite awhile. What green industry is going to plant themselves next to a bunch of pollution? We’ll never get away from polluting industries once they are established without paying for it dearly. The buck will pass on to us for corporation’s stubborn business sense if and when in the future a big conservation effort needs to be enacted because, gee, we really are polluting ourselves to death. 

I was reading the Sierra Club’s “The Mackinac” and it states what I’ve been reading elsewhere, that many places in this country are not giving permits to more coalburners. The front-page article said 44 proposed coal-fired plants were either denied or withdrawn in 2007 thanks to The Sierra Club. So what happened here? 

There were five more coalburners looking for environmental permits in Michigan, with three more new plants under discussion the article said. It also stated that the challenge to put a moratorium on coal-fired plants in Michigan is daunting. Well I guess, especially with a corporation friendly senate. It said, “The state has refused to regulate the CO2 from coal plants that contribute to global warming (so long as the applicants address other pollutants, the state will let them be built). So that’s why the rush to install scrubbers? The scrubbers address other pollutants that are breathing irritants, but not the mercury that is permeating through the water to the fish, to the birds, and eventually anyone who drinks the water—one of the world’s largest freshwater supplies that is no longer so fresh. Or the CO2, that’s warming us up and causing some really bad weather—almost tornado season. What’s the sense of the Great Lakes Legacy Act?  What a tail chase, and meanwhile the water and Michigan loses, while the polar bears, seals, fish, and birds, the entire earth, take a back seat to our excess.

 Take a stand and participate. Read: http://michigan.sierraclub.org/.

I don’t know if any other people interested in moving forward with all types of alternative energy have noticed the purposeful placement of the word “foreign” in many of the presidential contenders, Bush/Cheney, and legislator’s speeches. When a politician says they will make sure to fund research for new technologies to get us away from “foreign” oil dependence, they are probably talking money for a new type of oil drilling process. Technically, they won’t be lying, just misleading, if you tend to disregard that tricky little word “foreign.”

Granted, it’s been said that we do not have alternative technology available yet to take up the brunt of our oil demand, but it seems we keep looking to only one, and not a combination of alternative sources. What about a combination of alternative energy sources? I hear this idea floating around, but no gelling. The Sierra Club of Michigan has a very good presentation that shows a combination of energy sources, wind, solar, geothermal, etc., plus conservation programs like reclaiming wastewater, and recycling may meet all of our energy demands in Michigan. But we’re not advancing toward a future that will no longer be reliant on one big massive conglomerate like the oil cartel is to us right now. It seems we work toward monopolies in this country. Then we’re upset when we’re stuck with them without a choice. We should be looking to all venues to move forward for our energy future, not reinforcing the idea of fossil fuel again, like it’s all right because it belongs to us. 

I see the big push to get away from “foreign” oil as the big ruse to drill in the Arctic circle, the polar bear habitat, Utah, even Livonia, MI for Pete’s sake, and anywhere a slant oil drill can legitimately be utilized to “not’ enter our protected National Parks. They do so anyway at an angle right under protected habitat, while doing a great deal of damage with all the accompanying paraphernalia like roads, pipeline, trucks, heavy equipment, and trash. Ditto for coal mining. Using coal is getting away from “foreign” oil, all oil, but is still perpetuating the use of filthy fossil fuel that will eventually run out. Sure it might be thousands of years before it does, but at what price, gutting the countryside, ruining the earth trying?

So beware of that tricky little “foreign” word that comes before oil. It’s not a detail that should go unnoticed, because it doesn’t make any difference. It does, or they wouldn’t be slipping it in there.  It makes all the difference in our lives, our environment, and our world whether our future continues to poke around the earth and the oceans below for oil or coal that is “OURS.” Our oil and coal burn just as filthy as the “foreign” stuff.

I just got through reading some current worldwide environmental news and have to say, we don’t seem to have a clear-cut view of anything. What we profess, what we say, and what we actually do is all contrary.  First, I saw the Pope give his blessing and speak on behalf of peace and the environment over the Christmas season to over one billion Catholics. And the World Council of Churches that represents 560 million Christians worldwide is calling concerns over global warming a matter of faith. The WCC has had a program about climate change since 1992 and books about ecotheology (I’m interested).  Dr. Samuel Kobia the Secy. General of the WCC stipulates that Christians are well aware that dominion over all living things was given to us. He said that meant, “We were entrusted with the care of the rest of God’s creation.” The emphasis is on the word “CARE” here.

Care doesn’t come under savagely taking a machete to an orangutan trying to defend it’s young, or hooking a live dolphin in the side and sending it to be stripped of skin before it’s even dead, while the resulting meat is basically poison from ingesting too many pollutants, or shooting 6 elephants dead for stepping into a coffee field that is supposed to be their sanctuary. We should actively try to get this stopped, but our demands for things like lumber and coffee encourage it.  Oh and don’t forget about native animals and the latest Internet hunting websites that have yet to be banned in over 20 states.

I was looking on the Internet for websites to find out how our political candidates stand on the environment. Fortunately, I received my League of Conservation Voters newsletter in the mail today. The LCV has a new Presidential Candidate Profiles Website. It has the most comprehensive analysis of the candidate’s positions on global warming, energy, and how they’ve voted in the past. It also has Operation: Spotlight. Real interesting. The objective of the LCV is to target 14 states with a total of 159 electoral votes to elect environmentally friendly legislators in those states.

Unfortunately, Michigan is on the list of the 14 states that need a change in order to be environmentally up-to-par. I say unfortunately because we are surrounded by the world’s 2nd largest freshwater supply, and we can clearly see the fight for freshwater is in America’s future after this summer’s droughts. While our current legislators work to get a multi-state compact signed to keep our water here where it belongs, we have a Republican Senate that is not too terribly friendly to the environment. So we fight to keep freshwater here, and then do nothing to stop the industry pollution that threatens it? No sense to it at all. I know we have the Great Lakes Legacy cleanup thing going. You know where they dumped all the dredged up toxic sludge from the first project? Right near my house near Pt. Mouille game reserve, various protected wetlands, and another DNR game reserve all on the banks of Lake Erie again. It’s all just getting moved around. 

As far as our federal congress, a small group of Republican Senators has already blocked the House’s new energy bill. The LCV sites Senator Sununu for standing “with a minority in the Senate that sided with big oil and big coal to block a measure that is good for jobs, good for the economy, good for national security, good for consumers and good for the planet.” The power behind the lobby of big polluters is a force to be reckoned with. The LCV website is very informative as to who and who isn’t being bought by big energy, oil, lumber, coal, etc. According to the LCV, among the top candidates who are up for re-election or looking to move to the senate and receiving massive contributions by polluters to stop any progress forward to protect our earth, our health, and the lives of everything on the planet:

• Heather Wilson (NM)            835,512
• James Inhofe     (OK)             636,965
• Pete Domenici   (NM)            567,928
• Steve Pearce     (NM)             547,415
• Arlen Specter    (PA)              546,303

What’s up with New Mexico? I know it has plenty of open land. It’s a shame its legislators are being backed by dirty money, by that the LCV means polluter’s money, because New Mexico has a lot of open space. It could be an ideal place for solar or possibly geothermal energy. And it is one of 5 states fed by one river threatened by global warming.  Three people on that list will vote against the environment. Where’s the sense? If New Mexico runs out of water, watch them eyeball Michigan. It’s irresponsible. Add up that column above and it totals $3,134,123.00 to keep polluting. And it’s very early yet. Imagine the contribution total by November, 2008. It’s a sad statement considering the same money could be invested in alternative energy sources creating a win win situation no matter how the future progesses. 

 Check out more of “Operation: Spotlight, exposing the influence of dirty money in Congress” on the LCV website. This is valuable info. Politicians have scorecards for their voting history for specific environmental bills year by year. If you’re concerned about the environment, it is essential to know the candidates.  This is a must see checklist for doing your homework before elections: http://www.lcv.org/      

 http://www.lcv.org/OperationSpotlight/home.html                

I’ve been interested in investing in “green” business and/or stocks but didn’t know who or where to look for these particular type of stocks and ran into this great website, InvestorIdeas.com, that lists almost 400 “green” stocks in 16 categories. There are a handful of mutuals featured too.

Every company listed is an active link and has a little description and history about the company. I especially liked the categories. Already people have preferences. I know I lean toward hydrogen fuel cell technology and yup it’s a category. There is the basic solar, wind, geothermal, and hydrogen technologies along with biogas, ethanol, and clean power plants to the companies that supply parts like turbines and flywheels.

So there are a lot of choices out there already. I guess I lean toward hydrogen fuel cells because Daimler-Chrysler was the company that supplied Iceland with their first commercial hydrogen buses back in 2003, and recently GM said that was an avenue they will pursue. Just yesterday I saw the commercial for Honda’s new fuel cell car that emits only “clean water vapor.” Hydrogen is on its way. If you ever get a chance to catch the Eco Tech series on the Science Channel watch for the engineer that invented hydrogen pellets that supply power on demand. He commented that we may be putting pellets in our tanks before long.

While I don’t know about that one, automakers are leaning toward hydrogen. Hopefully we will utilize hydrogen power and clean our water in the process. Now I would like a piece of that!

Check out this informative investment website: http://www.renewableenergystocks.com/Companies/RenewableEnergy/Stock_List.asp.
 

Google announced it would spend millions of dollars annually in search of alternative energy sources like geothermal, solar, and wind power. And no they aren’t doing it for the money, or the power. Google is worth $208 billion and has no debt. Boy I wish I would have caught that wave. Anyway the guys at Google have at least $13 billion in loose change to play with and why not? They earnestly want to slow climate change with alternative sources as cheap as coal within 10 years.

Google also plans to cut or offset its greenhouse gas emission by 2008. Joining Google is Yahoo and News Corp. If this chain reaction keeps occurring, it will really add up. There are many corporations and businesses with a conscience that are really trying to contribute like Google. I’ve run across more and more articles about businesses looking to both cut emissions and find ways to incorporate alternative energy into their daily usage. I already blogged about business pushing the environmental movement. Many are doing so because of the high cost of fuel. It worked for me. A few changes and I lowered my gas and electric bill combined to $114, $115, and finally to $103 this summer. I didn’t suffer for it either.

Meanwhile Silicon Valley is filled with start up companies working on green energy. After watching a week of Eco Tech with batteries made from viruses, and hydrogen on demand pellets, I’m keeping my eye on what comes out of Silicon Valley. Not long ago investing in anything technical was very profitable. Like I said, I wish I caught the Google wave early. Now is a very good time to keep an eye on the stock market for signs of “green.” I can’t find too terribly many things wrong with going green along with the opportunity to watch some really great inventors come forward. It’s exciting to work toward such a noble goal, to slow global climate change. Whenever there is purpose, there is passion and that usually results in amazing innovation. 

NASA had to shelve a $200 million dollar satellite mission headed by a MIT professor because of budget cuts by the Bush administration. They also had to cancel the Deep Space Climate Observatory, a project that measures global precipitation, and the launch of a new satellite to replace one of our aged, primary weather satellites. All would help scientists better understand the impact of global warming.

What does that mean for us? With the weather growing more erratic, we won’t know sooner, but possibly later, maybe too late, what lies in store for us as far as droughts, floods, and hurricanes. It also affects the accuracy of severe weather forecasts and scientist’s ability to improve climate models with greater precision so that we know what’s going to happen far enough ahead of time to save our lives.

 And where are the funds going instead? Well, president Bush has a goal to complete the International Space Station and get astronauts back on the moon by 2020. Is it just me, or is he out of sync with everything just a tad on purpose? After all, it is a fact that the present administration is anything but environmentally friendly since it has a vested interest in big oil. It’s just a little too coincidental that funding to NASA has been cut, and it’s goals redirected by the president, especially when NASA scientists were the ones to come forward in protest that their expertise and predictions about global warming were censored by this administration. Evidence about those alterations aired on BBC news.

 Many cuts are being made by this administration as we run into the red more and more because of a war no one seems to want any longer. While Bush signs a $100 billion Iraq war funding bill, most of us should be wondering and inquiring how we’re paying for it. So far I’ve found federal funding to communities to repair/replace aging water lines has been cut, NASA’s funding has been cut, $78 million has been cut for federal energy efficiency programs, $2 million has been cut from FEMA’s budget, and Bush/Cheney have attempted another backdoor entry into the Artic Refuge for oil drilling, while they continue to propose to auction land in our National Parks to the highest bidder. And finally, please contact our representatives about the Farm Bill. Cuts have been made to almost two-thirds of the $23 million designated for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs that was allotted in the 2002 Farm Bill.

I’m warning everyone about the Farm Bill putting a pinch on farmers right at a time when we need to support farms in America if we want to eat untainted food again. As the Union for Concerned Scientists stated recently about the Farm Bill “These people rely upon grant and loan programs to support energy efficiency improvements and the purchase of renewable energy systems including wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy sources. At a time when America’s rural communities are facing economic challenges, funding renewable energy and energy efficiency projects would help establish an additional income source for landowners, create jobs, and lower energy costs for rural consumers. The Bush administration also attempted to slash this program in the 2005 and 2006 budget proposals.” Nice, real nice.

 Some might argue that Bush has raised federal funding for solar power to $148 million and doubled biomass research to $150 million. But it’s curious that geothermal and hydropower has been eliminated altogether. To me this just looks like he’s playing to monopolizing capitalists that can charge for corn (biomass) like they do for oil, using the same infrastructure nationwide. By limiting what types of alternative energy we promote, leads to less diversity in a country where one region, like Michigan, might benefit from hydrogen power more realistically than the desert of the southwest where solar power would prevail, and the northwest where geothermal activity might produce energy for that region. But heaven forbid there would be a reduction in national monopolies like big oil. We’re long overdue to think outside the box. This should be a time of welcome innovation for renewable energy sources and a surge in entrepreneurs for the “green.”

NASA had to shelve a $200 million dollar satellite mission headed by a MIT professor because of budget cuts by the Bush administration. They also had to cancel the Deep Space Climate Observatory, a project that measures global precipitation, and the launch of a new satellite to replace one of our aged, primary weather satellites. All would help scientists better understand the impact of global warming. What does that mean for us? With the weather growing more erratic, we won’t know sooner, but possibly later, maybe too late, what lies in store for us as far as droughts, floods, and hurricanes. It also affects the accuracy of severe weather forecasts and scientist’s ability to improve climate models with greater precision, so we know what’s going to happen far enough ahead of time to save our lives.