Change I can believe... scratch that Change is Make Believe.

Nothing is more disheartening than a bi-partisan effort to open more of our coasts to offshore drilling and exploration. Actually something else is... Barack Obama drastically switching his opinion on the matter. Even worse still is this is his quote:

I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact," he said.

So despite sound science affirming the need to cut down on our fossil fuel consumption, and despite that even with a "carefully circumscribed" drilling strategy you will not avoid environmental damage. Obama seems to cater to whatever audience he's talking to. Even when he himself states above he does not think this will solve our problems now or in the futures. If that's the case, please support something that does!

I'm all for a bi-partisan effort to take on our energy crisis, but this is not it. We need a bipartisanship effort to overcome the powerful influence our current energy dependence has over our leadership. And I am not talking about our scary dependence on foreign oil. If you don't believe me that Big Oil and Big Coal right here in the US are captains of our energy future. Just ask Senator Stevens where he got the money to rebuild the first floor of his "Alaskan Chalet"?

So much for not basing every opinion on what is politically popular. Or winning this election without pandering to Big Oil and Gas.

If you are the change we can believe in, how can we believe you when you keep changing your mind.

Al Gore: Part of the Wurzel?

I unfortunately missed Al Gore's speach in Washington DC on Thursday. When expressing my disappointment, an friend told me that going would be a waste, that Al Gore missed his chance when he lost in 2000. I disagreed whole-heartedly that Al Gore only had one chance for greatness for a number of reasons. Do I agree he missed a chance? Of course. As president Al Gore would have had the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices and I don't believe there is any power greater than that single one that comes with being the "Big Guy" here in the US. However, if you can put the Supreme Court aside for just a couple of minutes. I still think it's important especially when considering the crossroads our court is at. I think Al Gore is having a greater impact on energy and climate change than he ever would have as President. I believe this for one simple reason, the Al Gore we see today is animated and passionate and speaks his mind because he does not have to cater to big industry interests like coal, oil, auto and other transportation systems. His speech on Thursday which I've watched online only supports this claim.

Global Warming is well a global issue. Sorry if that seems obvious to some folks. But you cannot solve the current climate crisis if you will, while catering to every special interest at the same time. If you do, as Gore said, you ending up solving one problem with another. We love our cars, I don't doubt that, so we need more oil and it's expensive these days. Problem and solution #1,2,3: "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet." These are all solutions to some problem while creating more problems. I agree we need to change all of these things. Yeah, we need to get off fossil fuels, to me that's old news. I know that the potential for solar and wind is there to power the whole world, but Al Gore only talks briefly about the lack of infrastructure to do this (and it's dropping cost and the jobs it will provide). In the 10 year plan, we need to work with what we've got right now, which is fossil fuels, while moving towards a universal grid that can harness all this wind and solar potential.

An important thing to acknowledge is that we can't invest another dime in exploring for more fossil fuels. Drilling for oil off our coasts or in the Arctic doesn't the solve the problem that we are passed peak oil production. The supply of fossil fuels is declining, it does not matter how much we drill for it. Blowing up mountains for coal to power a new coal-fired power plant doesn't make sense either. It doesn't lower our costs. When instead we could be investing that money in never needing fossil fuels. Then investment needs to be in the move from fossil fuels and investment in solar and wind technology. When the opportunity for innovation arises we need to take it. And not turn to old solutions for the new problems we face today. For starters, if our cars had better fuel economy, ie we could get more miles per gallon (which we can and should) this would be a good place to start in revamping our oil and gas strategy over borrowing money from China, to get more gas from the Persian Gulf. Eventually, maybe we'll be plugging in our cars, but that still requires electricity. We need to invest in new technology, not old technology like coal-fired power plants. But I digress.

Al Gore's speech and impact:



Yeah I think it's ambitious. But it's better than what our world leaders are coming up with. The G8 Summit's energy plan is like a teenager taking baby steps. I commend Al Gore and the impact he is having on global warming. His movie "An Inconvenient Truth," opened the eyes of the world to the climate crisis. I don't believe we can sleep any longer when climate is actually changing. From Hurricane Katrina to fires in San Diego and flooding in the Midwest, the climate is changing. We can't hope that people wake up tomorrow and maybe decide to reduce their carbon footprint. A voluntary system like that proposed by the G8 will work for some, but not everyone. We need the likes of Al Gore, who's unbridled and special interest free vision will guide our next president to take on the biggest problem our society and the world has ever seen. I just don't think you can take on these issues while catering to the coal industry or oil industry first and unfortunately, our Democratic or Republican President caters to everyone (it's not a special interest kind of job). So yeah, Al Gore blew his chance to be that guy. But I do believe a person's character is determined not when they blow that big chance, but in what they do afterwards. Al Gore brushed himself off and decided to take on the biggest issue out there. Good for him.

Two very different platforms...

Two very different opinions... what do you think?

An energy election
How the candidates view energy policy, with the AJC's analysis of each plan

Published on: 07/07/08

John McCain says

• Permit oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf — where the shelf slopes into the deep ocean. It typically covers the area lying between three miles offshore and 200 miles offshore. No drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

• No windfall profits tax on oil companies.

• Suspend the 18.4 cent-a-gallon federal gasoline tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day — the "gas tax holiday."

• Offer a $5,000 tax credit for each customer who buys a zero-carbon-emissions car, to encourage automakers to build such vehicles and consumers to buy them.

• Award a $300 million prize for development of an electric-car battery "that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available ... cars."

• Enforce existing fuel-economy standards (currently 27.5 mpg for passenger cars). McCain asserts that carmakers that ignore the standards face mild punishment.

• Build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, with a goal of 100 new plants.

QUOTE: "The great issue of energy security is the sum total of so many problems that confront our nation. And it demands that we shake off old ways, negotiate new hazards and make hard choices long deferred."

Barack Obama says

• Invest $150 billion over 10 years to spark research and development of renewable energy technology.

• Reduce U.S. oil consumption by 3 million barrels per day by 2018 and 10 million barrels a day by 2030 — representing all imports from OPEC.

• No drilling in ANWR or on the Outer Continental Shelf.

• Phase out traditional incandescent light bulbs by 2014 for an energy saving of 88 billion kilowatt hours of power per year.

• "Flip" incentives at utility companies: Instead of getting increased profits when consumption goes up, utilities would make more money as they improve conservation.

• Double the fuel efficiency of autos within 18 years, saving a half-trillion gallons of gas. "Taking this one step will achieve more than three times the oil savings than could be produced under even the most optimist scenarios of drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and [ANWR]."

• Impose a "well-designed" windfall profits tax on oil companies.

QUOTE: "The question is not if a renewable energy economy will thrive in the future, it's where. And if we want that place to be the United States of America, we can't afford to wait any longer."

The Journal-Constitution says

• A windfall profits tax on oil companies, proposed by Obama, is a bad idea that would result in higher gasoline prices. high gas prices not such a bad idea if we are getting more miles per gallon

• The risks of drilling in ANWR far outweigh any benefits. But states should be able to decide whether to allow drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf beyond sight of shore. If it's going to be a state issue, let it be a state issue, Florida doesn't want to drill for oil of the coast but the Federal government has usurped that power. Lets just be clear and consistent. The residents of Wise County don't want to construct a coal fired power plant... again not their decision.

• The gasoline tax holiday proposal by McCain is ineffectual window dressing that would simply encourage people to buy more gas — exactly the wrong thing to do. agreed.

• A significant increase in federal CAFE standards is clearly warranted. McCain's policy glosses over this, simply saying that the government should enforce the current standard; Obama gets it right. agreed.

• The government should aggressively invest in the development of renewable energy sources. Obama appears headed in the right direction on this most crucial issue; McCain's proposal to build 100 nuclear plants is wrongheaded.agreed.

• McCain's idea to offer substantial tax credits to buyers of zero-emission cars is excellent; likewise, his $300 million prize for the best plug-in car battery sets us on the right road. I'll admit it, I like McCains idea here.

New Day.. New Wurzel

It's hard to believe the grief Senator Reid is getting over this short statement. It is true... Coal makes us sick. I'm not sure what type of scientific evidence is needed to validate this claim. But I'm working on it. I've been accused of leading with my passion and the courage of my conviction and not having the facts. Of course I'm passionate but I want to show people the facts.

I'm going to cite a lot of facts (not opinions) from Jeff Goodell's book that I am currently rereading. For those that think the cost of constructing a power plant is cheaper than promoting efficiency or ::gasp:: wind farms or solars. Consider this:

*Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining has buried more than 1200 miles of streams, polluted the region's groundwater and rivers, and turned about 400,000 acres of some of the world's most biologically rich temperate forests into flat, barren wastelands.

*Coal fired power plants have plumes of toxic chemicals that drift from Ohio to Maine which means a molecule of mercury emitted from the stack of a power plant in Tampa ends up in the brain of child in Minneapolis.

*The giant slurry impoundments containing the wastes from mining sites also contains high concentrations of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, and selenium. In heavy rains these dams break sending tidal waves of black, polluted water down over the people living below them.
And these impoundments collapse, a perfect example is The Martin County slurry spill of 2000, which had realised 300 million gallons of sludge into Appalachian streams. The spill covered 75 miles of the Big Sandy River with black sludge, killing 1.6 million fish, washing away roads and bridges, and contaminating the water systems of more than 27,000 people. The image to the right is of Marsh Fork Elementary School which sits just below a similar slurry impoundment. Seems real safe.

Reality in the Eye of the Beholder?

Through out the next couple of weeks I hope to respond to articles regarding Energy. This is the first attempt. I hope it gets better.

At first I was really excited to read an article entitled "Political Spins Blurring Energy Reality." It was the top hit in my Google news feed and I couldn't wait to read how statistics are being skewed to paint whatever energy "reality" seems appropriate. This article ran in the Houston Chronicle on July 6, 2008. My naive bubble was popped in almost as quickly as it was inflated. I do agree that statistics are used all the time in politics to frame the debate. However, I think it's also important to separate fact from fiction. It's also important to separate an opinion from a fact. It is not a democratic opinion that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will not affect the price we pay at the pump in the near future. Has someone figured out a way to tap oil reserves and deliver them directly to the pump in a matter of days, how about a year? I haven't heard of that, extracting oil from the ground is a time consuming process. Here's where a scientific opinion can come in, it's hard to predict exactly how much oil is left in ground. As science improves, our prediction definitely becomes more accurate. It is unlikely that even once it's extracted that there would be enough oil in the Arctic to influence global oil prices. But again that's just my opinion and I'm not a geologist so I'm not an expert.

There has to be a point where logic kicks and we realize that we can't drill our way out of energy problems. Another great quote from Senator Cornyn "It's undeniable that unless we increase our oil supply, we are stuck with high gas prices indefinitely." What happens if we increase our efficiency? The technology already exists to make our cars go further on less gas, so doesn't that decrease the cost. If you only need 1 gallon to get 60 miles instead of 2, that cuts your cost in half. This seems logical, lets use less gas to run our cars! When it comes down to it, oil is going to run out. Lets invest in something that isn't going to run out!

I do agree with Daniel Yergin about ending the either/or debate on energy. I don't think (opinion warning), it has to come down to high gas prices and energy forever OR drilling in the Arctic or off our costs. I also do not believe we've come to the point where it's build this coal fire power plant in Wise County, VA OR expect black outs across northern VA in 10 years. I do in fact believe it's possible to meet our energy needs, create jobs, and stimulate our economy without drilling or mining for it.



That's where this article leaves us with the concept of "Clean Coal"... the solution to all our energy needs. This is where I get riled up, because as much time as I've spent looking for clean coal. I can't find it! And trading out the photos of miners for models in lab coats isn't a different perspective, it's lying! Yeah that aren't many miners anymore, but mining is still happening. Instead we just blow up the mountain. Even if it was slightly possible that we could burn coal and have zero emissions, extractions is dirty and dangerous. We can scarcely begin to calculate the costs to figure out if they outweigh the benefits. Next I'll talk about some of the more intricate details of the coal industry depicted in Jeff Goodell "Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future" I hope after evaluating this book more closely I'll depict a more accurate image of the Coal Industry that exists today.