Our World and Everything in It

At one hundred kilowatts per hour per for one device, Swell Fuels lever operated pivoting float is something we should be using right now. A World Wire article stated: “The patent-pending device uses a pivoting float and a lever arm that unfolds to capture the up and down motion of ocean waves, producing electricity in the process.” How ingenious.

Swell Fuels is ready to go with this product but guess what? Politics and special interest groups are blocking this and many more innovative ways of creating energy for the future. We’re being told by many different articles including one in the Detroit Free Press this weekend about wind power, that the costs and time involved in alternative energy is too much, that’s why we’re not moving forward. Baloney. Innovation is being blocked to say the least.

Read more about this curious but effective invention: http://world-wire.com/news/0808120002.html.

Americans may be looking at 4-day workweeks soon in efforts to offset energy costs. Both Utah and Idaho’s state employee are on 4 tens. Some good things are happening as a result of the energy crisis. Not only are workweeks getting shorter, but employees are also allowed to work from home more and more. This can be good. This can be bad.

I can weigh in on the shortened workweek.  I worked 4 ten-hour days back in 1984. The extra two hours were split between morning and afternoon. My schedule started an hour earlier and ended an hour later than usual. So the bad thing was getting up earlier and getting home later. With longer hours, you might be a little more tired at days end also so after-work-projects aren’t likely to happen. But if you’re running your kids around most evenings anyway, this shouldn’t be a problem.

The real problem with 4-day workweeks is latch key kids. If working parents can tackle this problem then the rest of the attributes for working 4 tens are all positive. For one thing, your car is spared the trip. If you don’t use that up running all over town on Friday, then it’s a plus. It was reported that Utah figured all of its employees collectively saved $100,000 in gas money by not working on Friday. One woman said she only saved $72.00 for gas money during the month but finds the extra time spent with her kids invaluable.

From an employer’s point of view, a successful switch to 4-day workweeks depends on associated companies that work a 5-day workweek. Back in the early 90’s I actually worked a 3-day workweek for the same salary as 5 days.  I negotiated that by showing all the work I was doing that really belonged to others on the payroll. I got my way, a 3 day work week with Tuesday’s and Friday’s off, because I was able to show I was not only doing all of my duties in 5 days, but a bunch of other people’s also. Since I was a purchasing agent, and did payroll the 3-day problem came up. Tuesday was a slow day at work, and well Fridays, let’s get real here. I told my employer quite frankly that not much of anything would get purchased on a Friday anyway. Most of those orders will not hit someone’s desk until Monday. You’re not likely to get a sales rep to come around on Friday either. It’s like Friday “work” days dissolve somewhere around noon for quite a lot of professions. Most things are stalled until Monday because someone is usually missing on Friday. My employer acknowledged this. He was notorious for disappearing on Fridays. Monday and Friday off would have been sweet but that would have been pushing the envelope. I acknowledged that I needed to be there for payroll on Mondays. The best thing was when the company decided I needed to work 40 hours again. My wages almost doubled.

Like ABC news stated this morning, now is the time to negotiate for shared hours, shorter workweeks, and/or working from home. I did it when there was no energy crisis, late 80’s and early 90’s. A good employer should have no problem paying for a job well done regardless of the time involved. If you have a job that doesn’t involve other associates on 5 day work weeks, you’ve got a good case for a 4 day workweek. Prove you work faster and more efficient than most and you’ll probably get your way. It’s win win right now.

Once you get used to 4 days, and really using that Friday in an organized way so you can kick back on Saturday AND Sunday, you’ll probably find you do much less running around altogether. The solitary time away from the rat race is priceless. It might be good for America to learn to relax and quit all the running around. It would certainly be good for the environment.  

Late last Friday night our Michigan Senate watered down and passed energy legislation that took months to put together. There was no attempt at bipartisanship here.  As a result Michigan has a pretty shabby RPS or Renewable Portfolio Standards compared to surrounding states. What took the wind out of the sails of this legislation was the deletion of mandates. There will be no mandates on business, which means business may or may not choose to reduce it’s consumption of fossil fuels by choosing other sources of energy.

The Senate decided to go the route where state government would lead by example and be the first to reduce it’s dependency on fossil fuels by choosing alternative energy and also through conservation. The idea is that business would likely follow suit—but they don’t have to!

The positive side of this move by the senate is that taxpayers will be spared the cost of switching to alternative energy sources, and struggling business in MI won’t have to spend more to comply with any mandates. The state will bear the burden for moving forward. This is protectionism and admirable, but it also degrades Michigan’s RPS to nothing. States that have a strong RPS have reaped big  rewards in economic growth as a result. Michigan is missing the importance of a strong RPS. It equates to jobs and investment into the economy.

So the biggest downside is that Michigan’s economy will not likely pick up soon despite the “Green Gold Rush” that is on right now. On top of that, among all the cities in the country that had dismal spring housing sales where that market dropped again, Detroit area home sales were actually up 8%. That was on the news. So Michigan is primed and salivating for economic growth from anywhere that more than likely will not happen thanks to this senate’s quick and rash decisions last week.

Also, Michigan ranks in the top fifteen states in the country for wind generation, but there were few incentives and little interest in wind production in the bills. Yet according to an article on Metro Mode’s website, “[A] fully harnessed wind industry could result in up to 50,000 Michigan jobs, ranging from construction to assembly to engineering to research.” In this instance, the Republican lead Senate in Michigan is actually blocking progress and job growth. Wind is nothing to overlook in Michigan where there are constant shoreline breezes.

 The last negative to the final version of the bills is whether or not the environmental changes that take place within the state government will require outside contracts. I don’t like the sound of government contracting. Senator Waxman has uncovered billions of wasted dollars in contracts on the federal level both in Afghanistan and Iraq. This kind of thing looks like just another opportunity for friends to get paid.

 Environmentally friendly voters should drop a line to our state senate. The cons outweigh the pros for their decision on this latest round of energy bills relative to the loss of a lot of new jobs, and new money into our economy from somewhere else besides the auto industry for a change. Michigan’s economy is supposed to be undergoing change remember? 

Read about RPS in MI: http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/03/12/renewable-portfolio-standards-environmental-resume-for-states/

Entire article on Metro Mode about MI windpower: http://www.metromodemedia.com/features/MichiganWindPower0064.aspx

I was watching Planet Green about solar energy, specifically residential solar panels, and found out answers to a lot of questions. An average 2000 sq. ft. home would need to use 24–3 X 5 ft. solar panels to supply 90 to 95 percent of all electricity to the home. The panels sit on a rail and install within hours. The current produced from the solar panels goes to an inverter box hooked to the home’s main electrical box. The inverter converts the direct current into the U.S. alternating current and that’s about it.

Now for the cost. Depending on the size of the house it would cost 15 to 25 thousand dollars for the solar panels. With federal rebates the cost is lowered to 12 to 20 thousand dollars. This is very affordable for many people, and for those that can’t afford to eat, let alone put panels on their roof, I don’t see why the U.S. doesn’t just supply the darn things.

I figure if there are 300 million people in the U.S., then there are more than likely 100 million homes. The average cost of 12 to 20 thousand dollars for solar panels is 16 thousand dollars. If the government can get trillions in debt over a made up war, and keep pork barrel spending in the millions, not to mention earmarks on bills that amount to millions, then why doesn’t Uncle Sam just bite the bullet and supply 100 million homes with solar panels? The total cost would be 1.6 billion dollars but over a 4 year time period, it would come to a paltry 400 million per year.

I say paltry because of all the stupid waste I’ve read about. If you read, you know. It’s as if there are two alternate worlds. One world is where our officials come from regarding the environment, which is totally disconnected from anything I’m watching on Planet Green lately. I’ve actually written to the offices of senators, the governor, and reps asking whether they have someone on the payroll to just watch all the latest innovations that are available because our leaders seem completely out of touch, and keep trying to feed us a bunch of bunk that we must drill for more gas, drill for more oil, fossil fuel, fossil fuel, fossil fuel. They’ve had their blinders on so long they fail to realize it’s the 21^st century, and we’re able to watch and see for ourselves that there are an awful lot of alternatives out there besides the same ole, same ole. I think it’s criminal the way we are blatantly lied to.

Just yesterday I watched as Gerald Brown, Great Britain’s new prime minister, and President Bush agreed that 1000 new nuclear plants will be built world wide in order to meet energy demands. This is the big alternative we’re being fed now. But why? Furnishing homes with solar panels is so much cheaper, and immediate. There is no 5 years of building a nuke plant, with the end result being no reduction in energy costs at all. Instead of paying big oil, we pay the nuclear industry, and still end up with radioactive waste that doesn’t dissipate for 1000 years.

Evidently helping consumers deal with global warming is one thing. Helping consumers deal realistically with global warming once and for all by getting homes off the grid will never happen because big utilities won’t be able to get a piece of the action. Heaven forbid we affect the monopolies of America in such a way they would no longer be viable, and therefore unable to gouge us at every turn. We should be feeling more and more like pawns everyday. 

Check out this news from the Sierra Club: “Cars That Never Need Gas. Wish you never had to fill up again? Darrell Dickey doesn’t. He drives an electric car that’s charged by photovoltaic panels on the roof of his house. He’s one of three drivers who told us how they got into owning cars that are charged by wind or solar power.  As Dickey puts it, ‘For $45,000 we got a car and fuel for the rest of our lives.’” It covers the electricity on his house too.

Heck I paid more for my premium gas guzzling Cadillac 9 years ago. For anyone who pays a lot of money for their cars, this is a possibility. Throw in the house electric and what a deal! 

Read about other people who are taking the initiative to help themselves while they help the environment.  http://www.sierraclub.org/wecandoit/home/electric_cars.asp.

I read Mitch Albom’s column in the Free Press this past Sunday, and although I agree with him, I think it was well, um, a little bit dated. His perception that environmentalists are a league of people still derided as Chicken Littles is a little off. As long as I’ve been writing this blog, I think maybe I’ve been called a Chicken Little twice. I had one opponent that appeared to be a drinker going off into raves eventually calling me a cur so as to not get axed from the website for calling me something worse. But that was long ago. Another opponent eventually came to terms with the fact that on a lot of levels we are simpatico. We agreed that we do indeed create trash and should be cleaning up after ourselves, whether or not it does or does not contribute to global warming. Isn’t this moment of agreement in the environmental argument all that’s needed? Because cleaning up after ourselves is the first step to realizing just how much garbage we actually create, which should logically lead to more conservation efforts regardless of global warming.

In this light, how the pro-environmental argument is presented seems to make a heck of a lot of difference. Finding common ground brings people to agreement faster, and that’s what seems to be happening. Unlike Albom, I’m seeing a huge surge of environmentalism on TV and the Internet lately. My 85-year old mother pointed it out to me about 2 weeks ago. I paid closer attention after that and she’s right. There are all types of commercials on TV that are telling people to buy in bulk, don’t shampoo their hair every day, you know insidious mantra that eventually gets an entire population moving toward conservation without knowing it. Admit it. We’re herded more times than not and industry with the help of the media is like the rancher.

I blogged about industry moving the green market quite a while back. Industry’s push to go “green” is getting increasingly stronger because they can’t afford high energy costs either. GE can hardly keep up with the demand for its industrial wind turbines. Green rooftops are appearing on city buildings everywhere thanks to newly formed environmental organizations like Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. And just look up companies growing in leaps and bounds like Sun Edison, who provides an affordable way for industry to benefit from rooftop solar panels, that is, if they aren’t already planted green. Retail giant Wal-Mart starting moving to go green, and now companies like SC Johnson are looking to supply those big stores with their “totally” green .products. Even Conoco Philips (Big Oil) threw in the towel, and joined Tyson Chicken to create biofuel from chicken fat at no real profit, just because it’s the right thing to do for the environment. And when moguls like Ted Turner make statements that it’s absolute suicide to continue to pollute and consume the way we do, well, try calling terrible Ted a “CL.”

I’ve lost count of all the home improvement shows that tout “green,” as well as, media outlets like PBS, Discovery, Science, and National Geographic channels that consistently show the latest findings and discoveries regarding the environment and man. I’ve even watched Canadian TV like “The Outsider,” or “The Fifth Estate” air documentaries about U.S. government cover ups of scientific reports relative to global warming. I’m seeing more and more green shows coming out of Canada now. And I can’t say enough for organizations listed as links on my blog like EarthJustice, The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Union of Concerned Scientists, and many others that don’t think twice to take on the U.S. Government or anyone else over the environment and wildlife. While we sleep, or go about our usual day, these guys are out on cold oceans, at the edge of public forests, in congress, and everywhere they need to be to stop bad things from happening to our world and everything in it.

But best of all when I see Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich in a commercial urging citizens to contact congress to push ahead to embrace environmentalism, it’s a clear indication that forces are looking to gather against the old energy lobbyists and the spin machine. This was topped off last week when Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Committee for Oversight and Reform, sent a letter to EPA Administrator Johnson, that he need be prepared to testify regarding the recently released Union of Concerned Scientists Report documenting extensive and widespread political interference with the work of scientists at EPA. Yes!!!

Add to that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the EPA should be regulating CO2 emissions from autos as part of the Clean Air Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals vacating the EPA’s “Clean Air Mercury Rule,” literally throwing out the EPA’s cap and trade system for mercury, and demanding the EPA set new standards for the coal burning industry within two years. Concurrently, it also vacated the EPA’s “Incinerator Rule.” This bodes exceptionally well for the Chicken Little movement.

The timing is uncanny, but unlike Mr. Albom’s perception of environmental efforts, this past Sunday, for the first time in a very long time, I was optimistic about environmentalism, my faith in America restored. After researching the onslaught against our parks, our air, our water, animals, and their habitat for so long by the Bush/Cheney administration, I finally sensed a real, hardy shove back by the other powers that be, which is American industry and ingenuity. They don’t seem to suffer low self-esteem as a “Chicken Little” crowd at all. Had Mitch written about the “CL” complex a year ago I might have wholeheartedly agreed. But now, all I see is the “greening” of America, like it or not. As for “Chicken Little” calling, sticks and stones…

There are many states that adopted RPS’s (Renewable Portfolio Standards) years ago:
California – 2002, New Jersey – 2006, Texas – 2005, Nevada – 2005, New Mexico – 2004,  New York – 2004. These particular states were so successful they upped their ante. California is aiming at 22.5 % by 2021, Texas doubled their previous goal, Nevada’s raised their goal to 20% by 2015 with 5% from solar, and New York originally required 25% by 2013. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/clean-energy-policies-and-proposals.html

And what does our Michigan Senate come up with—an extremely weak little energy bill. SB 1000 simply says that state government, and no one else, should buy at least 25% of the electricity that powers the state government buildings from renewable sources by 2025, but only if renewable energy costs are within 5% of the cost of non-renewable energy. What does this end up amounting  to—1%? Also approved was SB 1041 that requires all electricity providers to offer customers the ability to purchase power through renewable resources. Big deal.

The Senate says its part of a larger package to come. They may mean a larger comprehensive House Bill outlining Michigan’s RPS, but I doubt it. The Senate beat that House Bill with this one to show they really are green, a really, really transparent green at best, which isn’t reassuring that they mean serious business or cooperation. All I see is stalling either by haggling with the House/Governor over everything, putting out lukewarm bills of their own that will cause haggling, and taking too long to pass legislation that didn’t come from the Senate, giving lobbyists more time to water down bills.

Due out soon, the House RPS presents a statewide renewable energy requirement of obtaining 10% renewable sources by 2015. Compared to other states reaping the economic benefits of establishing a good RPS, Michigan is late, and not very aggressive except the cost, which is being shoved on us, and to the benefit of big business. I’m feeling right wing economics here, giving big breaks to business and sticking us with the cost again. Big business can benefit all they want, it doesn’t mean it will trickle down to the little guy. I deem the trickle down theory dead. I didn’t see Exxon Mobil’s 40.1 billion annual net income in 2007 trickle down to the pumps! Did you?

Just this past October 24, 2007, Michigan’s Senate Republicans launched the Green Michigan Initiative that predominantly focuses on the Great Lakes, expanding recycling, developing green energy alternatives (this bill?), and reduction of waste in landfills. Sounds great doesn’t it? Most of what I’ve seen addresses recycling, and it took 4 years to come up with that! http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/readarticle.asp?id=876.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester said that the Senate had been hard at it for more than five years to initiate proactive legislation. Why so long? We’re years behind states that are sitting a lot better economically than Michigan. We need green jobs. The states that surround us that have a good RPS are drawing green business in the millions, like Minnesota—250 million in new green business just from implementing a wind generation program.

Most of Michigan’s Senate legislation so far is about recycling relative to landfills. It’s just a start also.  Most of these bills just left in November, 2007 to go to the appropriate committees. Who knows how long they will linger there. Plug in bill numbers 889-907 at this website to read them: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(su1elh45wa2xlkzion3od445))/mileg.aspx?

Are you getting the idea yet that our senate is dragging their feet, because besides the recycling bills above the only other environmental bills I’ve seen from 2007 are as follows: 

· SB 0616   Environmental protection; water pollution; CAFOs; regulate land application of manure.
· SB 0483 Environmental protection; water pollution; baseline environmental assessment fee; eliminate sunset
· SB 0152 Environmental protection; prohibited products; use of phosphorus in dishwashing detergents; prohibit.
· SB 0081  Environmental protection; landfills; solid waste disposal surcharge; establish and earmark for recycling and other programs.
· SB 0007 Energy; conservation; appliance and equipment energy efficiency standards; establish.
· SB 0008 Environmental protection; permits; zoning compliance; require as a condition of issuance of wastewater permits.

All of this fiddle faddling around about going green in Michigan stalls thousands of new jobs with new business, a new economy besides the auto industry, and millions in new tax revenues. Michigan can’t afford it. So why the stall? Our governor wants to move ahead for change. Why would our Senate take so long to come up with nothing all that exciting, the big green wash, when people are really struggling financially in Michigan? Do they want us to starve until we scream we’ll take $14.00 per hour and forget unions? Because this feels like Psychology 101 to me used over and over by the Feds and now here. Strain people to the max like $4.00-$5.00 per gallon at the pumps, so we scream drill in the Arctic, drill in the wild life refuge, drill in my back yard, just give me cheap fuel again. And at least half of us don’t even know we’re being manipulated.

My blog about an RPS and how much money it brings into a state: http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=250.

Another article about SB1000: http://www.mitechnews.com/articles.asp?id=8499&sec=104
 

After last month’s heating and electric bill, I posted a blog that I was going to make an effort to pay attention and see if I could lower my bill by $50.00. Didn’t happen, although the electric bill did come down $10.00, my overall bill remained the same $300.00 combined. Since the weather dipped to some pretty low numbers and we had several blustery days with wicked wind, maybe I didn’t do so badly? After all I don’t skimp on heat. I average between 70 and 72 degrees, and have a wall furnace in the back of the house that is always on half way. Relative to people who live in sheer frigidity, I’m doing rather well. 

The reason my bill didn’t climb with the dipping temperatures and windstorms is because of sun power.  I’ve made a concentrated effort to use the sun whenever it’s out, and despite a lot of snow here in Michigan, and that awful wind, it’s been sunny a lot. The sun is already hot. If you have any decent size windows facing south, open the window coverings and let it flow in. If your front door gets a shot of sunshine in the afternoon and has a storm door, open it. Then shut the thermostat off!

I cannot believe how my house stays heated long after the sun’s strength is gone. I found out because I forgot to turn the thermostat back on, more than once. I can open the drapes in my living room with 12 ft. of southern windows, and shut off my thermostat at 12:30 pm in the afternoon and not turn it back on until 5:30 pm at which time it still reads 70 degrees. My thermostat is off right now. It’s 5:00 pm. That’s around 5 hours of absolutely no gas use by the main furnace. I don’t turn up the heat from the wall unit in the back either. If I’m using the oven for cooking later, that’s an even greater bonus. When I’m done cooking and turn the oven off, I open the door a little. Why waste that heat? 

Open the front door too if it faces south. When I open mine, the heat hits me like a blast furnace. My cats sprawl their carcasses out full length in the little foyer. Now that’s some heat. Try it.  Use it!  It just bothers me a little at just how hot the sun really is, but then again, it’s March in Michigan and next week could sprout a 70-degree day.

If you normally keep your house lower than my average, you’ve got to see savings from turning off the heat for 5 hours, whenever it’s sunny. The reason I don’t just turn the thermostat down is because the northern portion of the house will cool down a little and still trip the thermostat. I also have room fans to circulate the heat down to the floor. Don’t forget to reverse the spin or the blades to keep your fans working for you in the winter, as well as, summer.

You’ve got nothing to lose by trying this, but a large heating bill.  If you’re away at work, get a programmable thermostat, open your window coverings before you leave and let the heat shut off around noon. You won’t know the difference when you get home. 

I can’t believe it. The Bush administration hasn’t exited yet and things are changing for the environmental good already. According the Environmental News Service today, Feb. 8th, 2008, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia “vacated two rules issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that failed to set strict limits on mercury emissions from power plants.” Vacated, I can’t believe it. That means “No Way!”

· The EPA’s cap and trade program was thrown out the window by the court.
· Then the court told the EPA how they “erred by taking power plants off the list of hazardous pollution sources when it issued its Clean Air Mercury Rule” that advocated the cap and trade program.
· The article went on to say, “the EPA now has two years to develop mercury emissions standards for existing power plants.”

The Clean Air Mercury Rule was an attempt by the EPA to limit the amount of mercury discharged by industry. There were two caps. The first was to be 38 tons of emissions reduced by first getting rid of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide called “co-benefits” by the rule. The rule suggests mercury reductions are achieved by doing this. But mercury is a chemical element. It is what it is. It is not sulfur and nitrogen. They are what they are. Granted they’re bad for the respiratory system, but what about the mercury? The court obviously got tired of this nonsense too and told the EPA to get on the ball. There was also an obvious problem with this little statement in the Clean Air Mercury Rule: “”…and because recent information demonstrates that it is not appropriate or necessary to regulate coal and oil-fired utility units under section 112 of the Clean Air Act.” What?

I griped about all of this in another blog when DTE (Detroit area energy provider) announced they were installing scrubbers for sulfur and nitrogen on their Monroe coalburner. Whoopty Doo. Scrubbers do nothing about the mercury, but today the courts sure did. I also predicted that  utility companies would continue too long on their same course and then whine about the cost to reverse things and comply with new clean air policy. How soon before we hear the sob stories?  So predictable. When companies have a big lobby, they throw all foresight to the wind.  They don’t need to stay on the ball. They pay to change the play instead.  And the taxpayer bears the brunt. Read about that again: http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/?m=200701.

This ruling comes on the heals of the June 2007 edict by the Court of Appeals that vacated the EPA’s Incinerator Rule. The court blasted the EPA for violating the Clean Air Act for relaxing limits on emissions of smog-forming compounds from large power plants, factories, and other industrial sources,” according to Chemical and Engineering News. Smog and smoke have always been pretty self explanatory to me. If you can see it in the air, it’s substantial, and you probably shouldn’t be breathing it. As a result of the court’s ruling, chemical plants, refineries, and other industrial facilities that burn the waste they generate in on-site incinerators must comply with the law’s most stringent rules governing hazardous air pollutants. So what about Holcim Cement?

As I sit in a county with the nation’s second largest coalburner that sits on Lake Erie, and a Holcim cement plant that’s big on incinerating and has racked up big fines for doing it, it’s going to be real interesting how the court’s rulings play out.

The announcement of the court ruling today: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-08-01.asp.
The June, 2007 ruling about incinerators: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i25/8525news7.html.
The EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule that is defunct as of today: http://www.epa.gov/camr/basic.htm.
A disturbing report about mercury hot spots: http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2004/Fort-Wayne-Indiana-Mercury11jan04.htm.
 

I was listening to Good Morning America this morning and it seems cities around the country are having a hard time controlling speeding drivers. Follow along here. Scottsdale, AZ was the first city to have speed enforcement cameras on one of its highways. Other cities are following suit. A county in Maryland that has speed cameras simply sends a citation to the speeder in the mail if they are clocked at more than 11 mph over the limit. Eleven miles over is a far cry from one driver that was caught doing 131 mph past a 65 mph sign. This camera system has its detractors that claim the cameras aren’t always accurate and they are limited. But the cameras work.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety knows that Americans speed and on all types of roads.  The speed cameras have got the 75 mph crowd way down from 15 percent to less than 2. That’s quite a drop.  But why do we speed? Because we can. And most of the time we do it around 20 percent over the limit. We should be asking why during this oil crunch and with CO2 emission overload hasn’t our federal government lowered the speed limit to 55 mph like it did in the 70’s?
The idea of speeding because we can is bolstered by our car industry. Don’t get me wrong; it’s sheer joy to hear pistons slamming while jumping out in front of the guy that wasn’t going to let me on the expressway. But that’s about it. Keep traveling too fast and get caught, not to mention burning way too much gas and emitting excessive CO2 in the process. We should wonder about the contradiction of producing speedy cars in a country of speed limits. It’s stupid irony.

Lowered speed limits and the introduction of ethanol pumps, something I have yet to see anywhere, were the combination of choice in the 70’s when gas was high. I don’t think ethanol is the best idea, it will burden the space for food crops and give us another empire that is corn rich, but among alternative choices, it has its place. So where are the ethanol pumps? Are they gone the way of a lower speed limit?

Some of the excuses look extremely flimsy for all the things we do and don’t. If we had ethanol pumps back in the 70’s, than we should most surely be able to get them out there now and fast. It isn’t like we don’t have the technology. Ditto for lowering the speed limit. As for car manufacturers, Daimler-Chrysler (at the time) had the technology to produce hydrogen buses for Iceland 5 years ago but “nada” for us now. Ford and GM are slow to present true hybrids and keep lobbying on fuel economy issues. They claim they need time to produce 40-mpg cars. But back in 1984, the Big 3 automakers produced a total of 35 cars that got 40 mpg or more.  GM had 19, Ford had 6, and Chrysler had 10 of those gas savers. I say drag out those engineering plans and slap a new, sleek, light weight body on those babies and get em out there! My girlfriend who is in the market for a hybrid came back from the auto show disappointed and a little unnerved by the propaganda she heard like, “this is a REAL car,” because it goes too fast for the speed limits and burns mega petro.

Have you followed the logic and gathered a clear idea that nothing adds up here? We chase our tail—backwards! The experience and technology is there, so we have to look to the reason it’s not happening. There is only one industry that benefits from speeders, inefficient fuel economy, and no alternative fuel sources readily available—OIL.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4221537

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/19/super-cheap-high-mpg-cars-1984/