Our World and Everything in It

I was watching Good Morning America this morning and the news featured a billionaire, ex-oil man named T-Bone Pickens on the subject of high oil prices. He stated that parts of America are known as the Saudi Arabia of wind and had to agree.  His home state of Texas has the largest wind field and is looking to Denmark to explore more off shore wind power along the coast. http://www.windenergynews.com/content/view/945/43/.

He stated there is no sense drilling for more oil in the U.S. There is not enough to sustain us but there is plenty of natural gas and WIND.

Meanwhile, I wondered about the “Saudi Arabia of wind” moniker and found that long-term studies have quantified the amount of mega the U.S. can produce. We’re rich with it.  Back in 2004, the U.S. Energy Dept. reported that wind power in the plain state’s region alone can provide more power than the entire nation’s electricity needs. And wind power is competitive with natural gas prices from way back in 2001. http://www.energyjustice.net/solutions/wind/.

According to Energy Justice, North and South Dakota alone have enough wind energy from its highest wind speed sites to supply over half of the electricity needs of the lower 48 states. A group of 12 states in the midsection of the country have enough wind energy potential to produce nearly four times the amount of electricity consumed by the nation in 1990.

Michigan just restored the monopoly by DTE Energy in Michigan, which allows DTE to limit use of alternative energy to only 10%. Does this  put a damper on overall use of more wind or solar power in Michigan? Does this limit individuals who want to go with solar and/or wind power for residential use?

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

Since we’re basically back to the drawing board relative to greatly lowering fossil fuel use in Michigan because of the Senate’s bad decision to cut mandates to business from our energy bills last week, Michigan has to look to other ways of cutting pollution from fossil fuel. So it’s already been suggested that our speed limit be lowered.

Personally, I don’t care if the speed limit is lower. I’ve lived through this before and it cut down road rage, traffic accidents, and therefore insurance premiums. If it’s posted 55mph, then we’ll go 70mph instead of 80mph and greater that I witness on the road all the time. Mind you, these speeders are generally juggling cell phones too.

Anyway, if the speed limit is lowered and we don’t like it, we only have ourselves to blame for not paying attention to what’s happening in our state congress relative to cutting pollution, helping the environment, creating more jobs, and enticing part of the Green Gold Rush to come to Michigan. It’s not happening for a reason. Pay attention and be pro-active in responding to our elected officials or we’re never going to turn around.

Ah, how soon we forget. Just a little over a year ago the United States Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could not bypass its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. That ruling caused a rush to court on behalf of other industry polluters, i.e., coal burning facilities. But luck ran out for the coal industry when the of U.S. Court of Appeal’s basically threw the EPA’s cap and trade program out, and told the EPA that they were wrong by taking power plants off the list of hazardous pollution sources with its “Clean Air Mercury Rule.” Now the EPA has two years to develop mercury emissions standards for existing power plants. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=232

So it seems a little redundant for citizens to have to sign a petition to send a message to our state congress to get Michigan moving. This particular petition calls for Governor Granholm to issue an executive order to immediately direct Michigan’s DEQ (Dept. of Environmental Quality) to regulate CO2 emissions from coal and other power facilities.

The real goal here is to show our state government we are indeed watching what does or does not happen in Michigan as far as legislation to move forward to bring new jobs to boost the economy, while continuing to curb pollution in Michigan. Our two houses and the governor continue to come to a stalemate regarding jobs, the environment, pollution, and our economy. We wouldn’t be as afraid to loose jobs in polluting industries like construction of coalburners, refineries, and even nuke plants, if we had a decent RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) and Energy Efficiency program to entice more green industry into our state, which seems to go hand in hand with the technical industries also.

Job growth in a new sector certainly takes the sting out of job loss and poor working conditions in waning manufacturing sectors. So get on with it Michigan! We’re missing a golden opportunity to transform ourselves quickly from old manufacturing status quo to something new completely that’s being afforded by green industry.

Perhaps signing a petition to nudge our politicians forward is a very good idea to show we want the green—both industry and paycheck green.

Take the time to sign at:   http://progressmichigan.org/page/s/globalwarming.
 

Hopefully, everyone in Michigan realizes by now that we are not simply in an economic downturn. We are going through a transformational change away from a predominantly manufacturing state toward more economic diversity. We should have done this long ago. Michigan has suffered horrible ups and downs in the economy from relying too heavily on the auto industry. If we can just hang tight and move to change wisely, things will get increasingly better for Michigan. Dr. Charles Ballard, an economist, writes about transformational change in his book “Michigan’s Economic Future.”
http://www.absolutemichigan.com/dig/michigan/michigan-books-michigans-economic-future/

We don’t need anyone to tell us we’re going through something much different than regular economic cycles. We know we’re trying to expand our markets, many of which will be green markets.  Back in 2006, Governor Granholm issued an Executive Directive for the development of a comprehensive plan for meeting the state’s electric power needs that would include alternative sources and a timetable. As a result the MPSC, Michigan Public Service Commission, developed the 21CEP or 21st Century Energy Plan. That plan calculated what would happen if Michigan’s economy went through a tranformational change for the worse, which is evident as loss of manufacturing capacity and jobs continues: http://www.emaee.org/articles.php?id=42 and http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/electric/capacity/energyplan/newenergy_oct11_2006rev.pdf

The MPSC calls transformational change for the worse “low load growth sensitivity” and the results of this low demand for electricity is found on page 67 of the above pdf from the MPSC. The table there shows no new coal plants are needed until 2021. This is big difference from DTE’s rate filing before the MPSC that shows no growth demand until 2012, a nine year difference. But it shows that even DTE doesn’t expect any increase in electricity demand for years. Pages 73-75 of http://efile.mpsc.cis.state.mi.us/efile/docs/15417/0001.pdf

There should be a moratorium on any new permits for coalburners then. The rush to get scrubbers on Michigan’s coalburners satisfies Michigan’s lax CO2 laws that state if a number of emissions are eliminated, then the owner of the coalburning facility can apply for a permit to expand that facility and not have to capture or control the remaining emissions. Unfortunately sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxide (NOx), mercury, and CO2 are all lumped together. The scrubbers will eliminate the sulfur and nitrogen, but the mercury and more CO2 are good to go. Why the rush to put scrubbers on coal plants now if not to apply for permits, and before the rules change? Any new permits for expansion or new construction of coalburning facilities should be denied because by DTE’s own admission, the increase in demand for electricity in Michigan is simply not there, at least for awhile. 

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
 

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 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.
 

Look out Michigan. Rising oil prices are causing some of our legislators to get creative. There was talk on WXYZ about scouting around for more places to drill for oil in Michigan. Isn’t that going to be a lovely sight for tourists to see, or us for that matter? Erie, Michigan thought they had a big fight over Eminent Domain with the railroad; wait until the oil industry sets their sights on a spot to drill. They got their way with millionaire ranchers out west, forcing one of them to build a new home in a corner of his own ranch to get away from the noise and scenery of the oil drilling operations. He found out the hard way that he only owns the dirt on top. The government owns the mineral rights below. He was told to move over.

And don’t think the oil price squeeze isn’t squeezing out the idea of drilling in the Great Lakes again.  After all, Canada does it. Just because we think that Congress permanently banned drilling in the Great Lakes in 2005, doesn’t mean a thing. Look at the past 7 years in this country. What was in place is nada now. Endangered species, wildlife habitats, national parks, clean air, clean water, and even private property have been challenged when we thought, well, they were protected.

I’ve run across several articles about Canada’s drilling in the Great Lakes. One of them, in the Detroit News stated:

While Canadian authorities maintain drilling has been safe, “Dirty Drilling,” a 2002 report by the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan, calls spills common, producing ’significant’ pollution that endangers wildlife. The environmental group said drilling in Lake Erie led to 51 natural gas leaks between 1997 and 2001 and 83 oil spills between 1990 and 1995. “‘Drilling has been neither safe nor risk-free,” the report concluded. The report was part of the arsenal used by U.S. drilling foes to push for a ban.

And that ban to drill in the Great Lakes passed in Congress. It is law, yet there are reverberations in Michigan right now about drilling again. I found another environmental blogger that has been watching some of our Michigan Republicans relative to Great Lakes oil drilling. Check it out: http://classwarnotes.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-does-rep-tim-walberg-mi-7-love-big.html.

If you’re concerned about our Great Lakes, or the future scenario for Michigan, better nip this oil drilling in the bud, especially after the ruckus over BP wanting to expand their operations in Indiana relative to Lake Michigan pollution.  We need to remind our legislators, we’re serious about moving forward, away from fossil fuels altogether, not just foreign oil.

Another good article to read going back to the 90’s when the issue of drilling in the Great Lakes came to the forefront:

http://www.opensecrets.org/newsletter/ce76/oilside.asp.

About Canada’s oil drilling in the Great Lakes read the whole Detroit News article:

 http://www.detnews.com/2005/project/0508/14/Z15-275433.htm.

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.