The Conservation Report

ANIMAL WELFARE: Houston Zoo elephant Mac, 2, dies of viral illness

ARCTIC MELTING: Arctic Ice Melt Sparks Plankton Blooms

AUTO INDUSTRY: Ford Scion Looks Beyond Bailout to Green Agenda

BIOFUELS: US Dept of Energy and Brazil to Commercialize Biofuels

BIOLOGY: Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs)

BIOMASS: New Biomass Plants Called For in Obama’s Green Agenda

CAMPAIGN 2008: Challenged ballots: You be the judge

CHINA: China tells rich polluting nations to change lifestyle

CLIMATE CHANGE: Nike, Starbucks Demand Congress To Act On Climate Change, An historic summit of state and provincial governors from around the world convened this week in California to advance national and worldwide efforts to fight climate change — and The Nature Conservancy played a key role in the summit’s success.

CORAL REEFS: Pacific Shipwrecks Potentially Toxic Timebombs, Scientists try to revive Japan’s biggest coral reef: Scientists are in an unprecedented project to restore Japan’s largest coral reef by planting thousands of baby corals growing on tiny ceramic beds.

DEFORESTATION: 3,000 Person Mob Attacks Govt. Offices to Protest Crackdown on Illegal Amazon Logging

DEREGULATION: Bush Aides Rush to Enact a Safety Rule Obama Opposes

DRILL BABY DRILL: Court Says Shell Can’t Drill Near Alaska: A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked Royal Dutch Shell from drilling oil wells off Alaska’s North Slope after finding that the Interior Department had failed to conduct an environmental study before issuing the company’s drilling permit.

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: New electric version of MINI Cooper offers MINI fun with zero emissions.

ENERGY: Phone Makers Monitor Charger Energy Consumption, Dutch homes get warm water from disused coal mine

ENVIRONMENT: Dumb eco-questions you were afraid to ask

EVOLUTION: “Smile” Octopus Spawned Many Species

FAIRTRADE: Starbucks to use Fairtrade coffee in every drink sold in Britain: Starbucks is to use Fairtrade coffee in every drink it sells in Britain, the company has announced.

FAST FOOD: Fast Food Made Up Mostly of Corn

FOOD: Tyson Foods Injects Chickens with Antibiotics Before They Hatch to Claim “Raised without Antibiotics”

FORESTS: Bark Beetles Kill Millions of Acres of Trees in West

GALAPAGOS ISLANDS: Once Thought Invasive, Some Galápagos Plants Can Call the Place Home: For years, conservationists have been concerned about the impact of invasive plant species in the Galápagos Islands. Hundreds of species have been identified as nonnative, introduced through human contact. The idea was to remove these plants to help keep the archipelago ecologically pristine.

GENETICS: Lizards, Birds Have Hair Genes

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY: Raser Technologies Gives Utah a New Geothermal Plant to Power Homes

GLACIAL MELTING: Baby Chimp Rescued From Congo Army

GLOBAL WARMING: New Ice Age Predicted — But Averted by Global Warming?

GREAT APES: Tibetan Glaciers Melting at Stunning Rate

HYBRID TECHNOLOGY: Kulongoski lobbies to bring China’s new hybrid car to Oregon, LA 2008: Honda shows off Insight’s Eco Assist dashboard

INVASIVE SPECIES: Beetle Invasion to Dim New England Fall Colors?, More cockroaches expected in Florida

LANDFILLS: Israel Turns 2,000 Acre Trash Dump into One of World’s Largest Parks

MARINE MAMMALS: Why Do Dolphins Rub Flippers?

NASA: Going Out On A Limb With A Tree-Person Ratio: Who knew that NASA, charged with looking deep into space, also looks backward at us? For years, NASA satellites have been snapping photos of our oceans, mountains and forests, and sharing them with ecologists and biologists.

NATURAL GAS: Drill for Natural Gas, Pollute Water: In July a hydrologist dropped a plastic sampling pipe 300 feet down a water well in rural Sublette County, Wy. and pulled up a load of brown oily water with a foul smell. Tests showed it contained benzene, a chemical believed to cause aplastic anemia and leukemia, in a concentration 1,500 times the level safe for people.

NATURE: Debate: Which is the world’s most invaluable species?: Plankton, bats, primates, fungi and bees - which species would have the greatest impact on our planet if it were lost? Five experts set out their case public debate in London next Thursday

NEW SPECIES: Penguin, Now Extinct, Discovered in New Zealand: Researchers studying a rare and endangered species of penguin have uncovered a previously unknown species that disappeared about 500 years ago.

NONRENEWABLE ENERGY: U.S. Moves Ahead on Oil, Gas Leases on Public Land: Decision Could Pose Problem for Obama

PALM OIL: The slippery business of palm oil: Palm oil is used in a third of all groceries. But can it ever be produced without causing environmental devastation as some big companies are promising?

PLASMA GASIFICATION PLANT: Plasma Plants Will Vaporize Trash While Generating Energy

PRIUS: BossDowner’s 2010 Prius Commercial - PriusChat.com, BossDowner’s 2010 Prius Commercial #2 - PriusChat.com

RENEWABLE ENERGY: Ocean currents can power the world, say scientists: A revolutionary device that can harness energy from slow-moving rivers and ocean currents could provide enough power for the entire world, scientists claim., Plumbing the oceans could bring limitless clean energy, Britain’s water mills given role in clean energy generation, EPA Coal Decision Levels Playing Field for Wind, Solar

RECYCLING: Why California Recycled 80% of Glass and the Rest of the U.S. 30%

REDISCOVERED SPECIES: “Extinct” Primate Found in Indonesia

SEA LEVEL RISE: Schwarzenegger Orders California to Prepare for Sea-Level Rise

SMART GRID TECHNOLOGY: Boulder, Colo.: America’s First ‘Smart Grid City’: Some Homes Can Remotely Control All Aspects of Their Energy-Saving Features, Report Calls for Overhaul of Power Grid to Handle Sun and Wind Power

SOLAR: Solar Panels Are Vanishing, Only to Reappear on the Internet, Solar at Sea: Chinese Cargo Ships Will Have Solar Sails, Solar-Powered Plane to Perform Test Flight

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Cuba Gets Green Cred: Cuba is the only country that meets the criteria for sustainable development from the conservation group WWF. But concern persists for once thriving Caribbean marine turtles.

WATER AVAILABILITY: The eco machine that can magic water out of thin air, Cow Sh*t to Clean Water

WHALING: Japanese Whalers Set Sail, Say Witnesses

WILD HORSES: U.S. Won’t Kill Wild Horses — For Now

WIND POWER: Giving Turbines a Boost With Curves, 360 Wind Powered Wal-Mart Stores by April 2009, Mega Wind Farms Could Steer Storms, Offshore Wind Power Could Alter Ocean Currents: “Whether or not this is a good thing is a matter of debate,” Brostrom said. Though he stressed that the goal for any man-made object should be to minimize environmental impact, he added: “I’m an optimist; I think this could be beneficial to local fisheries.”, Don’t Call it a Wind Farm, It’s an EcoPower Centre: Canada’s Largest Wind Project (200 MW) Opens

WTF?: Levelling the lingerie playing field: An online shop in Japan has seen an extraordinary demand for its newest product: bras for men. More than 300 have been snapped up in two weeks

“Environmental News Picks” are made possible with help from Kevin.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

IMAGE: Former President Jimmy Carter with his infamous White House solar panels

BREAK

The U.S. military’s consumption of energy makes the U.S. government the largest consumer of energy, so the government can certainly be doing a lot to improve consumption, offset unsustainable consumption, or promote sustainable consumption. Former President Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White House, but Former President Ronald Reagan took them down. Perhaps Obama will once again integrate solar energy into the White House. It’s important to lead by example, and Obama has said before that he wants to modernize the government auto fleet by using more hybrid, PHEV, and fuel-efficient cars. From The Associated Press:

President-elect Barack Obama says he wants to make the White House “green.” In an interview with Barbara Walters, Obama said he plans to sit down with the chief usher for the presidential mansion and do an evaluation of its energy efficiency.

He says part of what he wants to do is show the American people that it’s not that hard to go green.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

ExxonMobil reports the biggest quarterly U.S. profit ever. I wonder how much of those record profits were invested and will be invested into developing new energy technologies, into green energy, and updating the company’s energy distribution infrastructure. ExxonMobil broke its previous record amount of almost $12,000,000,000 in the second quarter to almost $15,000,000,000 in the third quarter. I like using zeros, because it puts things into perspective. From The Huffington Post:

Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, says it shattered its own record for the biggest profit from operations by a U.S. corporation, earning $14.83 billion in the third quarter. bolstered

Bolstered by this summer’s record crude prices, the Irving, Texas-based company said Thursday that net income jumped nearly 58 percent, or $2.86 a share in the July-September. That compares with $9.41 billion, or $1.70 a share, a year ago.

The previous record for U.S. corporate profit was set earlier this year, when Exxon Mobil earned $11.68 billion in the second quarter.

Revenue rose 35 percent to $137.7 billion.

We can save $13,000,000,000,000 ($13 trillion) dollars in future energy costs, and we can create a “$360 billion industry that provides half of the world’s electricity” by switching to renewable sources for our energy. Given the multi-trillion dollar savings, it is easy to understand why the oil companies have continuously sabotaged efforts to build the clean renewable infrastructure. The oil companies have a great interest in pumping as much oil as they can out of the ground and have it consumed by folks like you and me—no matter the cost to our pocketbooks or environment. From ABC News:

The 210-page study [pdf] is one of few reports – even by lobby groups – to look in detail at how energy use would have to be overhauled to meet the toughest scenarios for curbing greenhouse gases outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Renewable energy could provide all global energy needs by 2090,” according to the study, entitled “Energy (R)evolution.” EREC represents renewable energy industries and trade and research associations in Europe. A more radical scenario could eliminate coal use by 2050 if new power generation plants shifted quickly to renewables.

Solar power, biomass such as biofuels or wood, geothermal energy and wind could be the leading energies by 2090 in a shift from fossil fuels blamed by the IPCC for stoking global warming.

Cuba recently announced a discovery of 20 billion barrels of offshore oil. Certainly, the energy discovery is transformational for Cuba, since the government can use the new found wealth to provide for the people and the country’s infrastructure, which was recently devastated by tropical storms. Unlike the United States, which consumes much more energy than Cuba, the offshore oil discovery is significant, since it can result in Cuban energy independence. However, the discovery hasn’t been confirmed. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see how the discovery plays out with U.S.-Cuban relations—especially since the U.S. is one of the world’s greatest consumers, and there is pressure to find new sources of energy. Personally, I believe that Cuba should convert this newly discovered nonrenewable energy wealth into a strong renewable infrastructure. From The Guardian:

Havana based its dramatically higher estimate mainly on comparisons with oil output from similar geological structures off the coasts of Mexico and the US. Cuba’s undersea geology was “very similar” to Mexico’s giant Cantarell oil field in the Bay of Campeche, said Tenreyro.

A consortium of companies led by Spain’s Repsol had tested wells and were expected to begin drilling the first production well in mid-2009, and possibly several more later in the year, he said.

Cuba currently produces about 60,000 barrels of oil daily, covering almost half of its needs, and imports the rest from Venezuela in return for Cuban doctors and sports instructors. Even that barter system puts a strain on an impoverished economy in which Cubans earn an average monthly salary of $20.

Subsidised grocery staples, health care and education help make ends meet but an old joke - that the three biggest failings of the revolution are breakfast, lunch and dinner - still does the rounds. Last month hardships were compounded by tropical storms that shredded crops and devastated coastal towns.

.       .       .

However there is little prospect of Cuba becoming a communist version of Kuwait. Its oil is more than a mile deep under the ocean and difficult and expensive to extract. The four-decade-old US economic embargo prevents several of Cuba’s potential oil partners - notably Brazil, Norway and Spain - from using valuable first-generation technology.

.       .       .

Cuba’s unexpected arrival into the big oil league could increase pressure on the next administration to loosen the embargo to let US oil companies participate in the bonanza and reduce US dependency on the middle east, said Jones. “Up until now the embargo did not really impact on us in a substantive, strategic way. Oil is different. It’s something we need and want.”

American consumption is decreasing, and consequently, oil prices and the trade deficit are falling. Personally, I believe the best thing any American should have done to prepare for the current financial crisis, and can do now, is save.

Energy is supposed to be Sarah Palin’s one area of strength, but she seems to either misunderstand basic energy policy regarding the use of Alaska’s natural energy reserves, or she deliberately lied in order to avoid a confrontation in a recent Wisconsin town hall meeting. From the Associated Press:

A questioner at a town hall-style meeting in Wisconsin said he had heard that at least 75 percent of the oil drilled in Alaska was being sold to China and said, if true, he would like to know why.

“No. It’s not 75 percent of our oil being exported,” Palin said, suggesting some of Alaska’s oil, in fact, may be going abroad but not that much.

“In fact,” she added, “Congress is pretty strict on, um, export bans of oil and gas especially.”

No Alaska oil has been exported since 2004, and little if any since 2000, according to the Energy Information Administration and the Congressional Research Service.

And Congress has never imposed outright bans on oil exports. Congress prohibited exports of Alaska oil in 1973 when the Alaska oil pipeline was built. But that ban was lifted in 1996 when there were large volumes of Alaska oil coming down from the North Slope and U.S. demand was soft.

The Alaska ban has never been reinstated.

Both McCain’s and Obama’s presidential campaigns are touting “clean” coal as an alternative energy source. However, although there are cleaner ways to burn coal, clean coal as a reality does not exist. Clean coal is an oxymoron and a lie, and there are several factors why coal isn’t clean: (1) extracting coal is energy intensive and environmentally destructive; (2) mountaintop removal is a cheap and easy method of coal extraction used by the industry to replace mining, and the consequences of mountaintop removal are the destruction of Appalachia and its culture, environmental degradation of mountain valleys and waterways, and a loss of jobs in the mining industry; (3) clean coal technology relying on sequestering carbon doesn’t exist on a large scale and hasn’t been tested on a large scale; so (4) no one knows if sequestered carbon stored underground will keep, or (5) how it might affect the environment. From the washingtonpost.com:

Clean coal: Never was there an oxymoron more insidious, or more dangerous to our public health. Invoked as often by the Democratic presidential candidates as by the Republicans and by liberals and conservatives alike, this slogan has blindsided any meaningful progress toward a sustainable energy policy.

.       .       .

Orwellian language has led to Orwellian politics. With the imaginary vocabulary of “clean coal,” too many Democrats and Republicans, as well as a surprising number of environmentalists, have forgotten the dirty realities of extracting coal from the earth. Pummeled by warnings that global warming is triggering the apocalypse, Americans have fallen for the ruse of futuristic science that is clean coal. And in the meantime, swaths of the country are being destroyed before our eyes.

Steven Mufson discusses the meaning and consequences of “clean coal”:

To be sure, there are cleaner ways to burn coal, all things being relative. New coal plants operate more efficiently than old ones and therefore burn about a third less coal. And companies have been trying to come up with ways to isolate carbon dioxide from exhaust gases and bury it in the ground.

.       .       .

To some politicians, the phrase “clean coal” may seem like shorthand for technology that would separate carbon dioxide out of the exhaust of a coal-fired plant and bury it in the ground. So far, however, no coal plant like that exists in the United States, though a handful of companies are interested in building one. Such plants are expensive and untested. The Energy Department recently announced that it would hand out billions to a few firms to try out technology to capture and bury carbon dioxide in the ground. The financial rescue bill passed by the Senate Wednesday night included tax credits to firms that do that. But it will be many, many years before any carbon sequestration plant is in operation.

I’ve also heard many utilities, coal companies and politicians use the phrase “clean coal” to describe certain coal plants that convert coal to energy with an efficiency rate of over 40 percent, compared to older plants that function just over 30 percent. These plants, called “supercritical” plants, operate at higher pressures and higher temperatures and burn coal more efficiently, thus requiring less coal to generate the same amount of electricity. But either kind of plant still produces emissions.

Image Found Here

What happened? We have been on notice regarding the threats of peaking nonrenewable resources for over 30 years, but what did we learn?

Domestically, the United States has 2 or 3% of the world’s oil supply. However, we consume “19.6 million barrels per day, of oil, which is more than 25% of the world’s total.” Undoubtedly, Americans consume too much, or we consume unsustainably. Given the gross disproportion of what we have on reserve versus what we actually use or spend, why should we compromise our national security by commodifying our final untapped domestic oil reserves into the international market by drilling offshore? Offshore drilling is a dangerous and stupid policy, because it compromises our national security. We need aggressive long-term solutions that aren’t saturated with politics.

Despite criticisms, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was on the right track, but his successor, former President Ronald Reagan, dismantled Carter’s policies to make America energy independent, including the famous solar panels Carter placed on the White House roof. It’s amazing how a few decisions can result in big changes. As a result, I wonder how different the world would be if we continued with Carter’s energy policies.

Image Found Here

With crude oil having record gains, I find it deeply unsettling that America, a powerful and technologically advanced country, depends so much on oil, a nonrenewable resource. Certainly, oil is our Achilles’ heel, so why haven’t we started making an aggressive transition from nonrenewable resources to renewable resources?

One factor is the Bush Administration, which has had the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the Bush Administration cannot claim ignorance, because the evidence and factors for switching to renewable resources are well known.

We much radically change our policies. We need to go from manufacturing, selling, and buying goods that are made to deteriorate quickly to providing longer lasting more sustainable materials; from driving Hummers to driving electric cars and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV); from depending on an out of date electric grid to using information technology to modernize the electric grid; from providing a $700 billion dollar bailout to corporations to replacing a wasteful broken privatized healthcare system with a nationalized healthcare system; from demonizing international environmental treaties such as Kyoto to embracing them and making them work; and from depending on oil to depending on environmentally friendly bio-diesel, geothermal, solar, wave, wind, and other clean or renewable energies.

I believe the renewable energy infrastructure must be developed immediately, because now may already be too late. Certainly, $500 oil would be disastrous to America’s economy, but $500 oil would result in a devastating rush to consume and commodify Nature and her natural resources at an unprecedented rate.

I find it appalling that we have constructed such a complex civilization (albeit with a fragile infrastructure) and have based it on something that seemingly magically comes out of the ground. We can’t continue to depend on foreign countries for our energy needs, especially when suppliers such as the Saudis may already be seeing their oil production peaking or even declining. From Fortune Magazine:

That the spike in oil prices earlier this year wasn’t a temporary market anomaly and the recent retreat in prices is just a misleading calm before a calamitous storm? That we’re headed toward $500-a-barrel oil?

.       .       .

Of course, if demand goes up but supply doesn’t, prices are apt to go through the roof. And unlike global oil production, global oil demand doesn’t appear to be anywhere near a peak. Both the U.S. government’s Energy Information Association and the independent International Energy Agency, based in Paris, estimate that worldwide demand will be more than 115 million barrels a day by 2030.

While demand growth in the United States has slowed recently due to higher prices, the EIA projects that China and India will more than pick up the slack. And the IEA recently warned that high prices won’t slow demand growth in emerging economies. If demand wants to go north of 100 million barrels a day and supply can’t break 90 million (or drops below 80 million, as Simmons believes will happen within five years), it will be a price squeeze felt around the world. The peak-oil crowd will be able to declare victory - but nobody will be celebrating.

.       .       .

The concept of peak oil was introduced to the world in the 1950s by a curmudgeonly Shell geophysicist named M. King Hubbert, who observed that the production of oilfields tended to follow a bell-shaped curve, peaking and then turning down sharply. He came up with a formula to quantify his theory. And in 1956 he was ridiculed within the industry for predicting that U.S. crude oil production would max out in the early 1970s. Sure enough, though, in 1970 the United States reached its apex at just under ten million barrels per day, or roughly what the Saudis produce now, and began a long slide down. (Hubbert later predicted that world oil production would peak in 1995. He was a bit early on that call.)

No one disputes that oil production will top out some day. It is, after all, a finite resource. The argument is about how far off the peak is. As Simmons and others point out, many of the world’s largest oilfields - Prudhoe Bay, the North Sea - have already gone into decline. The most optimistic estimate for the average depletion rate of the world’s currently producing oilfields is between 4% and 5% annually, or about four million barrels per day at our current rate of production. That means that each year we must find enough new oil to first replace those four million barrels of lost daily production before we even add enough to meet new demand. This is all the more worrisome because world oil discovery of new reserves has been slowing since the mid-20th century.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

Drivers in the south and parts of the eastern seaboard of the United States are pulling up to gas stations only to discover dry pumps. Some factors resulting in shortages include the consequences of Hurricane Ike and rumors of gas shortages, which results in panic buying. Some gas station owners are taking advantage of the panicked market by gouging prices. However, states are fighting price gougers. Some areas reporting shortages include:

1. Alabama: “Alabama AAA spokesman Clay Ingram said people were still lining up at the pumps Friday with more panic buying, but on a smaller scale.”
2. Georgia: “Several Albany gas stations are without gas again this weekend.”
3. North Carolina: “Schools across North Carolina are having trouble finding fuel for buses – at any price.”
4. Tennessee: “Authorities in Nashville estimate three-quarters of the Tennessee city’s gas stations ran dry after rumors of a shortage spread.”
5. Virginia: “Now gas stations in Central Virginia are battling supply problems, many of them running out of gasoline all together.”

Report gas gouging: DOE’s Gas Price Watch Hotline

—
Photo source for attribution here and here. The authors or licensors of these images do not endorse my work or me and their images are protected under an attribution license.

John McCain has voted against higher fuel efficient standards, does not support ending tax breaks for Big Oil, and has voted against renewable energy development.  As a result, John McCain is against genuine energy independence.

The passing of this bill by the House of Representatives was pure politics, since there was something for everybody in it. I understand we must compromise and should compromise, but at what point does compromise dilute or weaken legislation so much that it becomes ineffective? Certainly, the politicians and industry are winners, and the American people are losers.  I doubt this bill will pass the Senate, and certainly the president would veto it.

Some highlights of energy bill HR 6899: (1) passed by a 236-189 vote; (2) allows states to decide whether “to drill between 50 and 100 miles off their coasts while allowing the federal government to open areas beyond 100 miles”; however, (3) as an incentive to keep states from drilling within their coastal waters, the bill “wouldn’t share any royalties gained from increased offshore oil drilling with coastal states”; (4) the important fishing waters on Georges Bank were excluded from offshore drilling under this bill; (5) at the expense of the environment, oil shale exploration and production would be opened up under this bill; (6) “utilities would be required to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020”; and (7) the bill would revoke “$18 billion in tax breaks” given to “oil companies — rechanneling that money to foster renewable energy efforts”.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

Tony Mauro at The Blog of Legal Times (BLT) notes that according to Stanford Law School professor and Davis Wright Tremaine partner Jeffrey Fisher, Sarah Palin and her husband could have but did not join the class action lawsuit that stemmed from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, since they were both (or at least Todd was) commercial fishers at the time. The BLT writes that:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — Sen. John McCain’s pick for vice president — and her husband Todd, both commercial fishers at the time, could have qualified as members of the class. But neither filed claims by the deadline this past February.

Furthermore, Sarah Palin was critical of the Supreme Court’s decision in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker:

After the Supreme Court ruled, Gov. Palin was critical of the outcome. “I am extremely disappointed with today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court,” she was quoted as saying. “While the decision brings some degree of closure to Alaskans suffering from 19 years of litigation and delay, the Court gutted the jury’s decision on punitive damages.” She also said, “It is tragic that so many Alaska fishermen and their families have had their lives put on hold waiting for this decision. My heart goes out to those affected, especially the families of the thousands of Alaskans who passed away while waiting for justice.”

However, one commenter thought that Sarah Palin was disappointed in the decision because “her husband works for BP.” Another commenter observed that “fishermen got screwed by the Bush court, and that the only way to reverse the trend is to elect Obama, who will likely fill Supreme Court vacancies with individuals who care about justice for people, justice for ALL people, and not justice for the wealthy and the corporate interest only.”

It’s hard to understand where Sarah Palin stands on Big Oil and the environment, because although she was critical of the Supreme Court’s Exxon decision, she was enthusiastic for or channeled the mantra: “Drill, baby, drill!” at the Republican National Convention. Furthermore, she supports domestic drilling despite that (1) oil is sold on an international market, so “American” oil will go to China and India, (2) oil companies will profit most from domestic drilling and not the American people, (3) oil companies have yet to explore all their federal leases, (4) the significant public opposition (5) domestic drilling will have an insignificant impact on energy prices and will do nothing to curb world demand.

Sara Palin seems to frequent both sides of the fence. However, she can’t have her cake and eat it too. As a result, she doesn’t deserve or qualify to speak out against Big Oil if she wants to give Big Oil the rights to drill in wildlife refuges or other public lands. Drilling for oil is not new energy policy.

Looking at these cartograms, the following buzz phrases come to my mind that illustrate the positive consequences if there is a significant reduction or discontinuation of the extraction of energy from coal and oil via mining, domestic drilling or importing by switching to alternative or renewable energy sources. From Cartograms - Images of the social and economic world - Rehydration Project:

1. Air pollution reduction
2. Clean and safe future
3. Climate change and global warming mitigation
4. Energy security
5. Mercury pollution
6. New jobs as the result of constructing the renewable energy infrastructure across America
7. Price of gas
8. Save money and nonrenewable resources
9. Stop depending on hostile countries that supply our energy and fuel
10. Sustainability

Undoubtedly there are many more factors why alternative and renewable energy are vastly superior to nonrenewable or fossil fuel sources. These data put into several cartograms below, further illustrate the need for energy independence.

The world as we know it:

Cartogram showing who has the most and least oil:

Cartogram showing energy consumption (including oil):

Cartogram showing greenhouse gas emissions by country:

Image Found Here
Image Found Here
Image Found Here
Image Found Here

Priceless.

Why keep your tires properly inflated, when you can give your money away to Exxon?

On the Net: The Democratic Party | Exxon McCain

John McCain is a snake-oil salesman. His energy policy might sound great to the average American, but is John McCain’s all of the above philosophy, that promotes both alternatives and offshore drilling together, the best policy to meet present-day energy demands? Certainly, it is not the best policy.

I do not trust McCain’s energy policy, because he has a poor record on both environmental and energy issues, which are interrelated. Furthermore, his straight talk approach implies business as usual or the status quo, and his straight talk approach on energy is a farce to falsely comfort Americans from the reality that we live in a finite world with finite resources.

Given McCain’s poor voting record on environmental issues, and his close ties to the oil industry (see how big oil rushed money to McCain after he “reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling” at the Washington Post), does McCain really have a new energy policy that is both imaginative and applicable in today’s world? I don’t think he does, because we have heard the same rhetoric from the Presidency of George W. Bush. We haven’t seen any significant policy or infrastructure to meet both energy and climate change demands come from the Presidency of George W. Bush. What we have seen from the Presidency of George W. Bush on energy and climate change is foot dragging. In fact, states have taken the lead in building the renewable energy infrastructure, and the federal government has not. I don’t trust McCain’s energy policy, because I hear and have heard the President make the same pitch. However, I do have some questions for John McCain:

1. What does the McCain energy policy actually do? What are the numbers?
2. Who are the projected winners and who are the projected losers (and please don’t say the American people are winners)?
3. What is the role of renewable energy in the McCain all of the above philosophy towards energy policy? Again, what are the numbers?
4. What is the role of nuclear power in the McCain energy policy? Numbers?

I think McCain is the one who is out of touch with America. Just like the gas tax holiday, McCain is wrong again, because given the world demand for oil, offshore drilling is a drop in the bucket, and isn’t worth the risk. Furthermore, I think his recent attacks on Obama for recommending that properly inflated tires save energy shows he is further out of touch. From TIME:

But who’s really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

More data is here to refute McCain’s claim that Obama is out of touch with America for recommending that properly inflated tires save energy:

Earlier this year, we cosponsored the Alliance to Save Energy’s Drive Smarter Challenge. As part of this campaign we advocated maintaining proper tire pressure as one simple step consumers could take to increase fuel economy and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It’s more important than you may think. For instance, did you know…

• The Department of Energy estimates that 1.2 billion gallons of fuel were wasted in 2005 as a result of driving on under-inflated tires.

• Fuel efficiency is reduced by 1% for every 3 PSI that tires are under-inflated.

• Proper tire inflation can save the equivalent of about 1 tank of gas per year.

• Proper tire inflation also reduces CO2 emissions.

• Experts estimate that 25% of automobiles are running on tires with lower than recommended pressure, because people don’t know how to check their tires or don’t realize that tires naturally lose air over time.

Below are the voting records of both John McCain and Barack Obama from the League of Conservation Voters. McCain has a voting score of 0%, so between both candidates, who do you trust on environmental and energy issues?

Obama responds to McCain’s out of touch attacks: “It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.” Furthermore, Obama actually mentions updating the electricity grid, which is perhaps the most important factor in promoting energy efficiency (and this video illustrates why I am voting for Obama):

On the Net: League of Conservation Voters - The Independent Political Voice for the Environment

I agree with Image Found HereRick Haglund 100%:

When $140-a-barrel oil destroyed sales of full-size pickups and SUVs in May and June, General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. took radical steps to shift production away from trucks to cars.

GM’s future car-laden product plan is based on oil prices rising to as high as $150 a barrel by next year. But what if oil falls to $70 a barrel and gasoline drops to around $2 a gallon?

Demand for big SUVs could again rise, forcing automakers to reallocate billions of dollars they just shifted to development of new cars back to trucks. That’s not exactly helpful to bottom lines already bleeding red ink.

A reprieve in oil prices also would hurt efforts to develop alternative energies that make us less dependent on foreign oil and reduce harmful greenhouse gases. That’s happened before.

It has happened before. Former Democratic president Jimmy Carter endeavored to develop a renewable energy infrastructure for America. He even set solar panels onto the White House. However, after taking office, former Republican President Ronald Regan removed the solar panels from the White House. You might think that today’s auto industry and consumers are too smart to be trapped by oil again after record oil prices, but I would not bet my life on it. Neither groups saw our current predicament coming even tough there were plenty of warning signs given by environmentalists and within our economy.

And to think Exxon didn’t even want to pay any damages in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. I wonder how Exxon Mobil will spend their $11.68 billion 2Q profits. Will the oil giant use its profits to aggressively develop alternative or renewable energy sources, update their infrastructure to deliver their oil to the markets more efficiently, remedy the carbon they help pump into the atmosphere, or will they continue to keep everything at a bare minimum to milk as much profit from our pockets as possible. These big profits yield big power and political influence. That’s scary.

Big surprise? NOT!

Image from The Huffington Post

The Coca-Cola Company is converting some of its trucking fleet into hybrids. Their “new trucks are estimated to lower fuel consumption by 37 percent and emissions by 32 percent — solid figures to impress the growing number of people who are demanding a reduction in greenhouse gases.” From the MiamiHerald.com, FL:

The hybrids are intended for heavy use in metropolitan markets, where they will rely on electric power up to 30 or 35 mph. Over that speed, the diesel engine kicks in, said Jose Brito, a truck specialist with the Coca-Cola distribution center. Batteries charge when the driver steps off the gas or during the braking process.

Coca-Cola has been working for five years with Eaton, a Cleveland-based industrial manufacturer, to design and develop the hybrid trucks, including a special transmission and the technology to shift between electric and diesel power.

The doors and back of the red trucks announce their hybrid status, with a large, green, old-fashioned Coke bottle on the back and a slogan to emphasize that the company is “working together for a Clean Environment.”

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-OH) says that, “We need to produce more American made energy.” The Republicans are illogically connecting the idea that drilling in ANWR will result in energy independence. Energy independence is synonymous to sustainability. Further relying on a nonrenewable resource does not manifest sustainability or a wise use of a natural resource that can be saved for when we truly need it, so how is drilling for oil in ANWR resulting in energy independence?

With arguments like “Congress is standing in the way of $2-a-gallon gas” and that “Congress continues to turn a deaf ear”, the dialogue on offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR and within the Intermountain West has run amok. The claims made by the Republican Party are nothing more than trickery and deceit to give ANWR over to the oil companies, and handing over ANWR for oil and gas development is nothing more than a slippery slop towards opening up other public lands. I wish these Republicans would attack renewable energy and climate change issues with the same voracity they have towards ANWR. Maybe then America can truly exist as an energy independent and sustainable country. According to House Minority Leader John A. Boehner:

We’re going to look at this barren, Arctic desert where I’m hoping to see some wildlife. But I understand there’s none there. But I’m still going to look for it. If I find any, I’ll let you know.

As a result to opening up ANWR for business, the United States Department of Energy is predicting the following (CAUTION: It reads like Pre-Iraq War Intelligence):

reducing world oil prices,

reducing the U.S. dependence on imported foreign oil,

improving the U.S. balance of trade,

extending the life of TAPS for oil, and

increasing U.S. jobs.

In case you want to get their report, here is a list of members that went on the American Energy Tour to ANWR. I’m willing to bet a certain valuable appendage that none of them are qualified to do environmental assessments:

1. John Boehner (R-OH)
2. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN)
3. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)
4. Mary Fallin (R-OK)
5. Dean Heller (R-NV)
6. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
7. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
8. Robert Latta (R-OH)
9. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
10. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
11. Adrian Smith (R-NE)

Some of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner’s best:

Current energy prices aren’t Obama’s fault. That’s an outright lie. McCain’s energy policy offers a glimpse into a McCain presidency, which seems to mirror a Bush presidency with all the Cheneyesque trimmings.

Crude oil extracted from America’s natural stores will be sold on an international market. Howell Raines at Portfolio.com has an important essay on what he sees as the true dynamics for high-energy prices. Apparently oil companies “haven’t explored 80 percent of their existing leases in the continental U.S., [and]… if they can crack the wildlife refuge, Congress will lack the political will to keep them away from the other government land and the ocean floor they covet…. [so oil companies seek] to receive bargain prices on the raw materials under public ownership.” From Portfolio.com:

Oil executives generally believe in an updated version of the peak-oil theory, introduced in 1956 by geologist M. King Hubbert. It posits that because of oil-field depletion and the expense of production, American-oil-industry output will reach a maximum level and then start to decline. An updated version of Hubbert’s bell curve—which factors in the number of wells being drilled and refinery capacity—sets the year that the peak will be reached at 2020. If you’re getting a prime price for a product that will be harder to acquire in a few years and less valuable due to competition from other fuels, the smart play, obviously, is to divert every penny into profit while the Black Gold Casino is still open. To confuse the press and public, you set up several straw men to take the blame for the supply shortage that you’ve seen coming for a half-century: refinery capacity, environmental legislation, and the imaginary supply potential in undrilled portions of the continental shelf and ANWR.

But let’s look at the Cheneyesque fantasy that drilling in ANWR is a major national-security priority that would make us less dependent on foreign oil. The fact is, the Trans-Alaska pipeline that is supposed to bring us that new ANWR oil probably couldn’t handle it right now because lack of maintenance has left it in bad shape. (Business Journalism 101: You can reinvest revenue in infrastructure or pull the money out as profit.) Plus, there’s not enough Alaskan oil to affect price. It would be gone in a few months if we could pump it at maximum capacity. From a national-security standpoint, the smart thing would be to leave it in the ground for use in case of some future civilization-threatening cataclysm.

Oil-friendly members of Congress like to blame environmental regulation for the lack of refinery capacity. But the oil companies themselves choked supply by closing more than half of their 300 U.S. refineries in the past 25 years. (Business Journalism 201: You can reinvest in manufacturing capacity or ride the demand curve to higher profits.) Studies by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a respected, oil-friendly consulting firm, indicate that even if all environmental regulations were removed from refinery construction, few would probably be built right away because of a 75 percent rise in construction costs since 2000, largely driven by the increased fuel cost of transporting building materials.

I really like Al Gore. He is brave, and I am a fan of his voracity to tackle climate change and our energy problems. Recently, he called for 100% of our electricity needs to come from truly clean and carbon-free sources by 2018. As a result, shock and awe ensured, but he did exactly what he needed to do, which was stir a debate.

On the Net: Al Gore’s speech given at the D.A.R. Constitutional Hall: A Generational Challenge to Repower America