Our World and Everything in It

The Coast Guard has shut down 98 miles of the Mississippi due to an oil spill by a Liberian barge with an apprentice pilot at the helm of the tug pulling it. Almost 420,000 gallons of industrial oil was dumped. The oil is “widely used as marine fuel, is heavier than diesel but lighter than crude, and it is likely to stick to rocks, trees and wildlife,” according to a CNN article.

We’re supposed to feel reassured that “the spill is much smaller than the ones that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Let’s hope so. The Coast Guard estimated that more than 7 million gallons of oil were dumped into the Mississippi and nearby waterways then.”  Considering the biggest oil spill of all, the The Exxon Valdez spill with more than 11 million gallons of crude oil, Katrina’s oil spill was worse than we know. 

The CNN article went on to say that,  “Wilma Subra, a chemist who advises the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, said the oil could endanger wildlife and eventually harm those residents who fish for a living.” No kidding.

If you want to view the number of oil spills by year and area, a great interactive tool can be found at: http://www.incidentnews.gov/map. You simply zone in on the parts of the world you want to check, and select the year. The map will pinpoint all of the oil spills.

We think everything is under control with oil spills that we have all this new technology to clean them up, but the fact is oil spills churn up for years to come and don’t affect certain marine life until years later either. Read about it at: http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/aquatic_oil.php.

Continued dependence on any oil is not good for our future. Drilling now will not help us for at least 4 years. So what exactly is the intent to drill? In 4 years time surely we will have other means of sustaining our energy if we can be encouraged, not stymied, to innovate in an environmental direction. If and when we replace some of our existing source of fuel over the next fours years with wind and solar power and find that we can go without oil altogether, what will we do with all the oil we drilled for in 2008, sell it at high dollar to an under developed country that is not concerned with environmental issues as much as staying alive?

Or, is there some sort of push to allow those with oil leases in the Arctic to drill now without rhyme or reason to reap the current top dollar for that oil, and then sell off before alternatives actually become a reality? All oil companies have vested interest in alternatives now, even Exxon Mobil. Wouldn’t that be something new to see, an oil stock sell off?

A short synopsis of what I gathered from a brief presentation of Al Gore’s speech in Washington today:

Gore thanked all of the congressman present and the many that he has conferred with over the years and around the world. He said he hoped to lift partisanship from global warming efforts.

He went on to say that America needs to shake off its complacency because the survival of the United States is at risk, as well as, what’s at stake for all civilization relative to global warming.

He acknowledged what many of us are currently thinking that so many things are going so wrong simultaneously. The economy is tanking. We’re losing job. The mortgage industry is in dire straights. We still have security risks, and the Iraq war. Gas prices keep rising. Food prices are rising.  And our weather is increasingly horrible, posing new threats to the economy as many homeowners lose everything they own to fires, floods, and tornadoes.

Global warming is advancing faster than originally thought in 2001, (National Geographic’s “Planet Earth” series proves this). Our own U.S. Navy subs went under the Arctic Ice Cap, and it’s now believed 75% of it will be gone in just 5 years. Greenland is disappearing with 20 million tons of ice melting into open water daily. Sea levels will rise. And based on the latest round of increased lightening strikes during storms, scientists say that a 1% increase in global warming will increase lightening strikes 10% more. The problem is bigger than we think.

So the bulk of America’s problems can be categorized as economic, environmental, and as national security issues. After speaking with leaders from around the world, scientists, engineers, CEO’s of major corporations, etc., all agree that old solutions that treat each of these categories separately is a mistake because at the core of every bad issue is our dangerous dependency on fossil fuels.

America needs to end dependency on carbon-based fuels!  (Roar from the crowd). It’s easy to see that these same measures to help the environment can:

• Ease the economy by offering thousands of new jobs in new green industry right here in America
•  Stop the energy/safety threat we suffer through control by foreign oil interests. These foreign (enemy) interests have a stranglehold on us. If we don’t need oil, we won’t need them. Oil fuels their wealth and power.  

Gore stated that the U.S. is borrowing money from China to purchase oil in the Middle East. We end up polluting while accelerating global warming. In that statement alone are the three categories of our problems economics, security, and the environment. We’re dealing with potential enemies to supplies us with our needs while they drain our bank account.

The quickest, cheapest, best answer to all three problems is the efficient production of electricity for all of our needs. Science proclaims that the sun provides enough cumulative energy every 40 minutes to provide 100% of the entire world’s needs. Now why wouldn’t we use that instead? Gore also reiterated what I’ve already learned, that there is enough wind through the U.S. corridor to provide all of America’s energy needs. Add geothermal power to the equation and we simply have enough energy to get away from fossil fuels once and for all.

Gore remembers a statement that was made long ago that if oil got to $30 per barrel then alternative energy sources would be competitive. We’re closing in on being 5 times that limit and greater demand for alternative energy by big corporate consumers is already bringing costs down.

The logic then follows that we must put an end to our old fossil fuel solutions. We need a new start. Gore presented a strategic challenge to all of America. It is the linchpin of a bold new strategy to change America’s direction. He urged Americans to strive to reach 100% reliance on clean alternative energy sources within the next 10 years! And we should never think we can’t, because we can. Gore sited the walk on the moon at this juncture. (Huge applause and ovation).

Talking about solutions 40 years away is ridiculous. We have to aim for less than 10 years and if that challenge is not politically viable, Gore said, “Then ask the people.” (Another huge ovation).

Gore stated that our country can’t afford 10 more years of a tanking economy, job outsourcing, horrible weather disasters whereby the home insurance business may bottom out, and 10 more years of troop deployments to dangerous regions who happen to have huge oil supplies. Hmmm that last statement was interesting. Did we really invade Iraq for the oil and how is that playing out, and what oil companies and people are benefiting from our grief?

That’s pretty much all CNBC and CNN allowed us to watch. CNN announced at the same time Gore was giving this speech that John McCain was in Kansas getting an ovation for his idea about offshore oil drilling. I think Gore can forget partisan unity at this point.   

I read an e-mail from Defenders of Wildlife that explained how wealthy speculators (oil) are driving up the price of oil to double or more per barrel than what it should be. It stated that, “Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management, who testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in June, ‘with greater regulation [of speculation], oil prices could drop to $65 or $70 a barrel within about 30 days.’”

Well, that’s a no-brainer. Even Bush’s Energy Information Agency estimates that oil from drilling in the Arctic wouldn’t hit the market for 4 years and would only reduce gas by a few cents. It’s more of our own oil, but it’s still going to be $4 per gallon or more? What’s wrong with this picture? This speculation business looks to be true in that case. The agency also said “offshore drilling would not significantly impact domestic production or prices before 2030.”

Just yesterday I blogged that even the most environmentally minded in congress were willing to back drilling if necessary. Necessary to lower gas prices and make them look good for re-election? Now it’s really starting to look like this speculation thing is real. Look at the facts:

• Drilling for oil both in the Arctic and offshore will not bring gas prices down quickly at all.
• Those in Washington opposed to new drilling will now consider it if necessary, even though it doesn’t change the fact that drilling will not bring prices down. 
• Necessary must mean whatever it takes to bring gas prices down for re-election.
• Speculators are the only ones that can bring gas prices down quickly and drastically.

 Conclusion:  Environmentally minded congressional leaders are willing to give in to speculators wishes to drill in the Arctic and offshore in exchange for immediate relief at the pump for consumers and ultimately their re-election. Isn’t this extortion? Isn’t this our congressional leaders complying with extortion?

Congress needs to regulate speculators and quick if we want to see a fast, drastic drop at the pump. It’s a much better solution than giving in to greed and extortion while sacrificing clean water, marine life, and wildlife habitat.

We had to know this was going to happen. The U.S. has continued to sell oil leases even though the Arctic is still protected. When these guys get a plan in their head, war and extortion are not out of their realm. This is the final push during Bush’s term and it’s going to be a very bumpy ride. It appears this speculation news is being kept to a minimum.

I caught a little bit of Anderson Cooper on CNN last night asking the same question, “Are speculators driving up the price of oil?” Of course the official reply from someone official pooh, poohed the whole idea. And I guess that is supposed to be the end of it. Much of our country’s leadership, certainly wealthy corporations no longer answer to anyone anyway. 

Most of the time, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s a duck. And this is a real game plan speculators have going here. They’re no better than thugs making us suffer until we give in to their demands. Contact your congress people and soon. Regulate speculators.

When we think of the Olympics, we think about human beings exerting their best performance humanly possible in a given sport. In order for the athletes to perform to their best ability, their bodies must be at their strongest, and therefore, healthiest. The two things just go together. So is China a healthy example to be holding the Olympics in Beijing? China likes to put on a facade. They like to present themselves as strong, modern, but it’s the same old communist regime. The change in China’s behavior toward the environment has shown no significant improvement despite the environmentalists that were displayed in a documentary I watched. 

The documentary was 90 minutes of eye-opener. China’s lakes, streams, and rivers are all polluted. The air quality is so poor, some Chinese wear facemasks on the streets. The Chinese have stripped the land bare of trees in many places, so the ground is scorching at a faster rate. The Gobi desert is 100 miles outside the city of Beijing and encroaching.  Beijing is the 16^th most polluted city on earth, city not country. To rank 16^th among that many cities is bad. I’m curious. Who is number one?

CNN reported last night that China is having a heck of a time cleaning up for the Olympics. The outdoor arena where some of the events take place has very poor air quality. Some of the worst air in the city is nearby. According to the World Bank 400,000 people die each year because of the air. The bad air near where the athletes will compete may cause some of the events to be canceled because of poor air quality. There is fear that so many steroids in the food may trigger poor responses for athletes and drug testing. Everyone going to China is warned not to drink the tap water.

China is hardly the model of health and purity, which is a significant part of any athlete’s regime. It is a communist regime that has also decimated a peaceful Tibet, advanced on Taiwan again, exported food and merchandise that is harmful to human beings, and warned us more than a few times “Do not interfere.” The latest warning over not accepting their exported goods is to ruin us economically. They hold $407 billion in U.S. bonds and threaten to dump them if we stop importing their stuff. Isn’t that extortion? We should never have become indebted to a communist regime country. There are over a billion Chinese people. They are dying from their environment. How long will they stay in place? Think about it. If you’re forced to move somewhere, and someone owes you big time, of course you’re  moving near that someone, or in on that someone.  

Boeing premieres its 787 “Dreamliner” jet tonight at around 7:00 pm EST. It will more than likely be on CNN since they announced it. It is more environmentally friendly than the usual airliner because it is lighter and more fuel-efficient. Boeing estimates the 787 will use 27% less than the jets it will be replacing.

The Dreamliner isn’t huge. It’s a wide, mid-size, twin-engine jetliner that will hold 210-330 people in two interior sections. There will be three categories of 787, the 787-3,  8, and 9 with a price tag that spans from lowest to highest also. For a mere $138-143 million you can purchase a 787-3. The 787-8 will cost $148-157 million, and the 787-9 a whopping 178.5 to 188 million. Over 500 of these planes are sold already. If you want to preview the plane and get more info on-line click here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/787premiere.html#time.

On the same note, the British have come up with a smaller jet that is really different in design and meant for the short haul such as cross-country. It has been called easyJet ecoJet because it will emit 50 percent less CO2 and 75 percent less nitrous oxide than our newest short haul jets. Now that’s really environmentally friendly.

The ecoJet uses much the same material for its body as the Boeing “Dreamliner.” It uses open rotor engines and is supposed to be 25 percent quieter. With all the jets going over my house, I hope we get these up and running soon. Major airliner manufacturers are applying the same type of technology to new jets in development all over. When this jet comes out, the airlines are poised to eat them up.

It appears the original easyJet wasn’t that hard on the environment to begin with. When the amount of CO2 emitted by the jet is divided among the passengers per kilometer it only generates 97.5 grams of CO2. The Toyota Prius emits 104 grams. The European car industry has a target of 130 grams of CO2 per kilometer for the energy standards. 

If you’re wondering why this is important, well NASA did a study in 2004 that showed a 1 percent per decade increase in cirrus cloud cover over the U.S. due to air travel. You know all those jet trails that blend in with the clouds? Those jet plumes caused a 1 percent increase in clouds per decade. If you don’t think that’s much, I would have to say that it shouldn’t be evident at all, at least not an amount that can actually be measured. No wonder all our patio furniture gets so pitted up. Those emissions eventually rain down on everything. We breathe that air. We’ve become way too comfortable with pollution. It’s good to see the easyJet is not that far off from production and that most jet manufacturer’s are embracing that same technology.  For now we have the 787 Dreamliner, a step in the right direction for going green. Read more about the easyJet ecoJet at Live Science:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070615_easyjet_ecojet.html.