The Conservation Report

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.

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

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) is proposing Virginia Lease Sale 220 to allow for Virginia offshore drilling. The 45 day commending period regarding “particular environmental, biological, archaeological, socioeconomic, and geological (including natural hazard areas) conditions or potential conflicts, or other information that might bear upon the potential leasing, exploration, and development of the program area and vicinity” ends on December 29, 2008, but comments can be submitted by email. From the MMS NewsRoom.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has taken the first step in the multi-year leasing process to hold a sale for acreage offshore Virginia. The Call for Information and Interest/Nominations and Notice of Intent (Call/NOI) to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be published in the November 13th Federal Register, beginning a 45-day public comment period.

The purpose of the Call/NOI is to gather information to use for planning and analysis and does not indicate a preliminary decision to hold a lease sale. The final decision will be made at a later date only if the sale is in compliance with applicable laws including all requirements of the OCS Lands Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

“At the request of the Governor, MMS included the area offshore Virginia based on the Commonwealth’s current energy policy and continued interest in knowing what resources may be off its coastline,” said MMS Director Randall Luthi. The sale, referred to as Lease Sale 220, is proposed to be held in 2011.

Image Found Here

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

More information regarding this video can be found at The Huffington Post.

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

Obama’s energy plan is common sense, since part of his energy plan tackles the federal government. As a former federal government contractor, I noticed a lot of waste—especially how government vehicles are used. Certainly, a large portion of government travel can use either smaller, hybrid, or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Furthermore, he is calling for conservation, and there is nothing wrong with conservation if it promotes reasonable consumption.

An energy plan using electric, hybrid, and PHEVs is far superior to T. Boone Pickens’s plan to put a lot of energy and money to develop the infrastructure for natural gas-powered vehicles. Natural gas is another fossil fuel, but it produces less energy. Personally, I don’t believe we need new coal power plants, and clean coal doesn’t exist. Other highlights of Obama’s energy plan include: (1) developing America’s renewable energy infrastructure thus (2) create green jobs, (3) using cap-and-trade programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and (4) eliminate or reduce our energy imports. Obama also wants to promote energy conservation and efficiency by updating our current electrical grid to smart grid technology. From MarketWatch:

According to President-elect Obama’s website (www.barackobama.com), the Obama-Biden plan aims to “make the U.S. a leader on climate change” and to “put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars — cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon — on the road by 2015.” Other goals of the Obama-Biden plan include:

– Invest $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), commercial scale renewable energy, low emissions coal plants, the next generation of fuel infrastructure and the transition to a new digital electricity grid

– Convert the entire White House fleet to plug-ins within Obama’s first year of office

– Ensure that half of all cars purchased by the federal government be PHEVs or EVs by 2012

– Provide a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of advanced technology vehicles as well as conversion tax credits

– Require 10% of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2012

Hat tip to Kevin.

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

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.

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.

This is a hodgepodge posting of random images that I’ve come across during the last few days, which may find interesting.

Cost of bailout versus major federal spending



Who voted against the $700 billion financial bailout bill? From NYTimes.com.



WebEcoist hosts “20 of the World’s Weirdest Endangered Species.” Image: Purple frog (Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis). Image Found Here



The New Yorker magazine’s cover illustrates Sarah Palin’s foreign policy experience.



WebUrbanist hosts “7 Abandoned Architectural Wonders of Modern Asia.”  One of the more famous abandoned buildings includes the failed Ryugyong Hotel in Pyongyang, North Korea.



Via Andrew Sullivan, I found this article that highlights “Of All the People in All the World,” an event that uses grains of rice to illustrate statistics. More information here.



Celebrity Solstice, practically a floating city, makes her debut.



Michel de Broin turns a dumpster into a jacuzzi.



Oil Consumption by state.  WTF? Texas!



Bullfrog vs. Sparrow. Sparrow loses. See an amazing series of images 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.

Drill here, drill now: Sex, drugs, money, and oil

There are new allegations of scandal against U.S. Department of the Interior government employees. A report discloses that Interior Department workers engaged in fraternizing, unethical behavior, drug use, and sexual relationships with industry workers described as promiscuous. These accusations aren’t surprising for a government under George W. Bush, which has been too close to corporations. From the New York Times, United States:

[T]he Interior Department agency that collects oil and gas royalties has been caught up in a wide-ranging ethics scandal — including allegations of financial self-dealing, accepting gifts from energy companies, cocaine use and sexual misconduct.

.       .       .

The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch.

.       .       .

Two other reports focus on “a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity” and unethical behavior in the service’s royalty-in-kind program. That part of the agency collects about $4 billion a year in the form of oil and gas rather than cash royalties.

.       .       .

The investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.”

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

This interactive graphic from Portfolio.com illustrates what other countries and territories pay per-gallon for gas (as of May - August 2008, depending on the country). According to the numbers, America is still a spoiled country.

Africa 
1. Libya: $0.50
2. Madagascar: $5.97
3. Zambia: $9.88

Asia

4. China: $3.40
5. Hong Kong: $8.05

Europe

6. Italy: $9.09
7. Norway: $9.95

North and Central America

8. Cuba: $3.75
9. Panama: $4.13
10. United States of America: $3.73

Middle East

11. Saudi Arabia: $0.45
12. Turkey: $11.18

South America

13. Bolivia: $1.95
14. Brazil: $6.38

Go here to see what other countries and territories are paying per-gallon for gas.

As a group, Republicans are very out of touch on energy and environmental issues. The “green” conservative Newt Gingrich believes that keeping automobile tires properly inflated to save gas is “loony tunes.”

Newt Gingrich also believes that buying air to keep your automobile’s tires properly inflated will increase Big Oil’s profits. Really? Doesn’t air sold at gas stations go to the gas station owners? Mr. Gingrich’s arguments are ridiculous, and these are the same people that argue, “Drill Here, Drill Now”, which is nothing more than a farce and sham.

So is Senator Barack Obama correct in his assertion that keeping your automobile’s tires inflated can save gas? Of course! Any reasonable prudent person knows it’s the truth. From Popular Mechanics:

How many cars have underinflated tires? A Department of Transportation study dating back to 2001 says that 60 to 80 percent of cars on the road are running tires underinflated by as much as 10 percent. Worse yet, they say that 20 to 50 percent of them are driving with tires down in pressure by as much as 20 percent. Want more? Well, 10 to 30 percent of these cars have tires with pressure as low as 30 percent of the recommended pressure. That’s bad, folks. And it means we’re costing ourselves much more than a few miles per gallon. It means we’re wearing out a lot of tires prematurely. And more important, it means there are quite a few cars on the road that have less-than-optimal control on wet pavement, under heavy braking or during evasive maneuvers. So underinflated tires may be causing untold accidents.

.       .       .

Will maintaining proper tire pressures make a huge difference in the enormous amount of oil we import? No. But it can make a dent, albeit a very small one. According to the Department of Energy, underinflated tires alone cost the country more than 1.25 billion gal. of gasoline annually—roughly 1 percent of the total consumption of 142 billion gal. According to the Annual Energy Outlook 2007, published by the Energy Information Administration, offshore drilling would increase domestic production of crude oil by only about 1 percent.

We opened this discussion with Sen. Obama’s assertion that we can offset the need to reopen offshore drilling—and save money at the pump—by keeping our tires inflated properly. He’s right, although he’s ignoring the potential for making a serious dent in natural gas production rates. You know what? I’m not running straight out to buy luxury items with the savings like I was supposed to with my incentive check. But then again, if you’re reading Popular Mechanics, you already know that proper auto maintenance saves you money in the long run.

Dubai, located in the United Arab Emirates, is a cosmopolitan and very modern, and the city continues to produce some of the world’s most extraordinary and striking architecture. Dubai also embraces green construction and renewable energy. Most surprisingly, although oil was instrumental to the Arab city’s expansion and growth, “by 2000 the oil sector accounted for just 10 percent of Dubai’s GDP [and] the city now has thriving manufacturing, finance, information technology and tourism sectors and is home to numerous multinational companies such as AT&T, General Motors, Heinz, IBM, Shell, and Sony.”

On the Net: Dubai to make green building norms mandatory from next year
On the Net: Dubai first Arab city to join Earth Hour

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.

AIR POLLUTION: Beijing Olympics: China to celebrate week of ‘fresh air’: China’s Olympic organisers are hoping to celebrate a week of “clean” skies tomorrow after recording another day when Beijing’s notoriously poor air quality was officially judged good enough for the Games

APICULTURE: Commercially raised bees spreading disease

AQUACULTURE: The salmon business: Can marine farming ever be eco friendly?: Every day, a million Britons tuck into salmon, and demand is rising fast. Marine farming is the supermarkets’ answer – but can it ever be eco-friendly? Martin Hickman reports

ARCTIC MELTING: Stuck polar bears eating birds, Canadian ice shelf loses 7-square-mile section

BIOFUELS: McDonalds to power Manila’s police cars

BIG OIL: BP 2Q profits soar

CONSERVATION: Ancient tree needs help: environmentalists: The founder of National Tree Day wants the Federal Government to help save a rare Tasmanian tree

CRONYISM, LIES, COVER-UPS AND INDICTMENTS: Senate Democrats call on EPA administrator Stephen Johnson to resign, want DOJ investigation

ECO-DRIVING: You can tell Google Maps that you want walking directions to supplement your driving directions, which can save you gas in high density areas, and google will find known routes that are direct, flat, and that use pedestrian pathways

ENERGY: U.S. Motorists May Drive Less for 1st Time Since 1980, Energy conservation: Starting at home

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: A look at the ‘tough’ Montana judge in the gray wolves case

EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS AND TOXINS: Political appointees at the Department of Labor are moving with unusual speed to push through in the final months of the Bush administration a rule making it tougher to regulate workers’ on-the-job exposure to chemicals and toxins

FOOD: L.A. blocks new fast-food outlets from poor areas, In New Orleans, a fried chicken institution revived, Every bite you take: How Sysco came to monopolize most of what you eat

FUEL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS: 180mpg hatch by 2050

GREEN GRAFFITI: Anti-Bush graffiti: 25 countries, six continents

GROSS IN APPROPRIATE USE OF RESOURCES: Airbus superjumbo lands at New York’s JFK

HIV/AIDS: U.S. blacks, if a nation, would rank high on AIDS, Number of new HIV infections in US much higher than government reported, study finds

HUMANITY: US House of Representatives set to apologise to black Americans for ‘enslavement and racial segregation’

INVASIVE SPECIES: Underwater, a disturbing new world: A Tribune team follows researchers to the bottom of Lake Michigan as they try to explain the rapidly shifting ecosystem

OFFSHORE DRILLING: Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling, GOP continues full-court press on oil drilling

OIL: Bush wants lower royalties levied on oil shale: Department of Interior says move would be an incentive

PLASTIC: Congress weighs ban Of chemical used in plastics

RECYCLING: Houston resists recycling, and independent streak is cited

REDUCE, REUSE, AND RECYCLE: How to carry groceries with a square of cloth

SCIENCE: Personalized stem cells one step closer to reality: Researchers create disease-specific, individualized human stem cells, Exercise pill: Drug burns fat, boosts endurance without moving a muscle, Ice on Mars confirmed by Phoenix Lander

SHARK: Rare shark stolen from tank, Great white shark filmed breaching at night: A first

TIDAL POWER: France plans groundbreaking tidal power experiment

TRAFFIC: Solo drivers would be able to a pay a toll for the privilege of using carpool lanes to speed their commutes on a dozen highways from the South Bay to Sonoma and east under a plan approved Wednesday by Bay Area transportation officials

WASTE: Within the Sonoran Desert National Monument, Arizona, is one of the largest stockpiles of discarded vehicle tyres1 in the US - perhaps as many as 10 million individual tyres

WIND POWER: Japan owes its energy efficiency in part to wind farms, Wind-powered tall ships are once again important as oil prices hurt trade, World’s largest wind farm planned in Oregon