The other day, I decided I would let our Senator and our President know how I feel about their actions (or, rather, the lack thereof) on environmental issues.
Here's what I wrote to Sen. Bennet:
Senator Bennet, I am a registered independent and my views are such that I refer to myself as an environmentalist republican. However, you won my vote in the last election because you took a strong stance on environmental policy.
Well, welcome to the 110th Congress. It's past time for action on the environment. It's time for a cap-and-trade bill to regulate carbon and create jobs through a carbon market (similar to the sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade system introduced by Republicans in the 1980s). I recognize that there are many important issues in front of our political leaders currently. However, doing nothing (or very little) to halt and possibly reverse climate change makes all other issues moot. We won't have to worry about child welfare or education or war if we make the environment unlivable by humans.
So, I'm sending this to you to respectfully request your immediate action on the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill.
Thank you.
Here's what I sent to President Obama:
President Obama,
I first want to congratulate you on your presidency (and, hopefully, a second term) and the progress you've made thus far. It's been a remarkable ride.
I appreciate all the hard work you face every day and I do not envy you the decisions and compromises you must make.
However, I have been very disappointed in one aspect of your term - the environment. You campaigned on the premise that massive change would take place in regards to the environment. We would take steps to reduce and/or eliminate our need on foreign oil, invest in renewable energies, and make our current technologies cleaner and safer. But, I haven't seen any of that action yet. In fact, I've seen the opposite. You've opened up drilling off the US coastline, let oil companies bypass new environmental regulations and massive subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas companies continue regardless of the fact that they are the most profitable companies in the world. On top of that, the EPA carbon-dioxide regulation has been bypassed and the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill has all but died.
The environment is the most important issue to ever face humanity. If we don't stop (and hopefully reverse) climate change, we'll make this planet uninhabitable by humans. Action needs to be taken now.
I would enjoy voting for you in 2012, assuming action has been taken on this issue.
Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not expect to recieve any responses at all. However, I did get this back from Sen. Bennet:
Dear Friend:
Thank you for your e-mail message. Keeping in touch with Coloradans is important to me. Due to the high volume of messages my office receives on a daily basis, I ask for your patience as I work with my staff to respond to your concerns.
I want to hear your thoughts on the issues that are important to you. The best ideas come from people in Colorado, not from politicians in Washington. That’s why it’s so important for me to hear your thoughts on how we can build a better future for Colorado and our country, together.
While we work to respond to your request, I invite you to read blog updates http://bennet.senate.gov/about/updates/, check out the latest news from your region of Colorado http://bennet.senate.gov/, and subscribe to an e-mail newsletter that will provide you with regular updates on my work on behalf of Colorado http://bennet.senate.gov/contact/. If you want to know more about issues and specific bills before the Senate, please visit our issue pages. If you’re having trouble with a federal agency, visit the constituent services section http://bennet.senate.gov/services/. Scheduling requests may be e-mailed to scheduler@bennet.senate.gov or sent by fax to 202-228-4083.
Thank you for contacting me.
----------------------------
As for the President, it seems he saved his response for the State of the Union address tonight. I can't wait to see how much of his promises tonight make it through to real action. I'm looking forward to it. In addition, I'm not going to sit by and do nothing - I'm committed to raising my business levels to meet our needs.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Sunday, January 9, 2011
2011
Here we are in a new year... again. As we all have realized, time speeds up with age. An unfair phenomenon, to be sure. But, until we evolve past the point of "needing" a clock and, therefore, realizing that time is just illusionary, we may as well make the most of it.
So, what are you doing in 2011 to make yourself and/or the world a better place? I'm not going to bring up that word that everyone hates - resolutions - but let's talk about goals. I'm about to start my yearly goal-setting session and thought I'd write about it here. Do you set goals? If so, great! If not, why not? For me, it's more than the mere resolution that's forgotten in a couple of weeks, it's a clarification of the direction of my life. As the cat in "Alice in Wonderland" said, if you don't care where you'll end up, it doesn't much matter which direction you go. If you know where you want to be, then make some plans to get there. If you want to better the world, then find something simple and start. There are lots of resources to help out, including myself.
What's the point I'm getting at? Well, we all have free choice. We can do whatever we want with our lives. So, no, you don't have to make goals. You don't have to do anything. My only point is that we all have the choice to control our destiny or let a destiny happen to us. Which choice will you make?
So, what are you doing in 2011 to make yourself and/or the world a better place? I'm not going to bring up that word that everyone hates - resolutions - but let's talk about goals. I'm about to start my yearly goal-setting session and thought I'd write about it here. Do you set goals? If so, great! If not, why not? For me, it's more than the mere resolution that's forgotten in a couple of weeks, it's a clarification of the direction of my life. As the cat in "Alice in Wonderland" said, if you don't care where you'll end up, it doesn't much matter which direction you go. If you know where you want to be, then make some plans to get there. If you want to better the world, then find something simple and start. There are lots of resources to help out, including myself.
What's the point I'm getting at? Well, we all have free choice. We can do whatever we want with our lives. So, no, you don't have to make goals. You don't have to do anything. My only point is that we all have the choice to control our destiny or let a destiny happen to us. Which choice will you make?
Monday, October 4, 2010
The illusion of "grid parity"
One of the hottest terms in the energy business is "grid parity". What is it? Well, it's a hard-to-define term that is easier to describe by what it means to achieve it. When renewable energy sources become as cheap as or cheaper than producing energy from non-renewable sources, "grid parity" will have been reached. When will that happen? Most experts predict that it will be achieved in the U.S. by 2015. A mere 5 years away. And while I applaud that day and eagerly await it - after all, it will make my business much easier and it's better for the entire world.
But... (you knew that was coming, right?)
What if we have already achieved this ever-elusive goal? What if we didn't have to wait any longer?
I contend that we have. How you ask? Through some creative bean counting.
I've spent some time over the last couple of weeks trying to nail down an amount for how much the oil & gas industries receive from state and federal governments by way of subsidies. It's been very difficult. The problem lies in how the subsidies are given out. There are so many ways the governments give breaks to the fossil fuel industries that it's nearly impossible to track them all and nail down a total amount. The most common, of course, is tax breaks. In the state of Colorado, we give oil & gas companies approximately $300 million a year in tax breaks. In a state with a total debt of nearly $26 billion.
Imagine, if we stopped giving that money to oil & gas companies - remember, they already make profits in the BILLIONS PER QUARTER. Imagine again if we instead gave that money to renewable energy companies or for renewable energy projects. But, I digress...
Without the state & federal subsidies, gas & oil prices would jump - to their true costs. This would do many things. It would cause a lot of pain that would create a lot of change. It would also highlight how renewable energy is, in fact, within parity with fossil fuels already. And then we would easily and quickly change over to renewables.
How likely is this scenario? Not very. We're not likely to cancel the subsidies that have helped build our techno present and will help build our future. Not to mention that, annoying as us wacko treehuggers can be, we don't have the pull that a multi-billion, multi-national oil & gas company has with governments.
What do we do in the meantime? Vote. Both with our ballots and with our wallets. Go find a way to do something renewable for your energy needs - solar hot water, a wind turbine, solar electric, geo-thermal, anything - and take some money away from the utility. Then investigate your political leaders and candidates. Find out not only what they say their environmental policy is, but also how they've actually acted on it. If they're doing what they say they'll do and their actions are positive for our Earth, keep them. If not, fire them. We have the power and it's past time for us to take it back and use it.
But... (you knew that was coming, right?)
What if we have already achieved this ever-elusive goal? What if we didn't have to wait any longer?
I contend that we have. How you ask? Through some creative bean counting.
I've spent some time over the last couple of weeks trying to nail down an amount for how much the oil & gas industries receive from state and federal governments by way of subsidies. It's been very difficult. The problem lies in how the subsidies are given out. There are so many ways the governments give breaks to the fossil fuel industries that it's nearly impossible to track them all and nail down a total amount. The most common, of course, is tax breaks. In the state of Colorado, we give oil & gas companies approximately $300 million a year in tax breaks. In a state with a total debt of nearly $26 billion.
Imagine, if we stopped giving that money to oil & gas companies - remember, they already make profits in the BILLIONS PER QUARTER. Imagine again if we instead gave that money to renewable energy companies or for renewable energy projects. But, I digress...
Without the state & federal subsidies, gas & oil prices would jump - to their true costs. This would do many things. It would cause a lot of pain that would create a lot of change. It would also highlight how renewable energy is, in fact, within parity with fossil fuels already. And then we would easily and quickly change over to renewables.
How likely is this scenario? Not very. We're not likely to cancel the subsidies that have helped build our techno present and will help build our future. Not to mention that, annoying as us wacko treehuggers can be, we don't have the pull that a multi-billion, multi-national oil & gas company has with governments.
What do we do in the meantime? Vote. Both with our ballots and with our wallets. Go find a way to do something renewable for your energy needs - solar hot water, a wind turbine, solar electric, geo-thermal, anything - and take some money away from the utility. Then investigate your political leaders and candidates. Find out not only what they say their environmental policy is, but also how they've actually acted on it. If they're doing what they say they'll do and their actions are positive for our Earth, keep them. If not, fire them. We have the power and it's past time for us to take it back and use it.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The other day I had the opportunity to sit a corner downtown for a while. I got to see many diverse things. Not just eclectic people, though there were plenty of those, but many varied forms of transportation. From bicycles to land boats to SUVs, delivery trucks, and hybrids. At one point, I saw a man pull up in a very nice truck - a Chevy half-ton, extra-cab, short bed. Just a beautiful "man-truck". And he was obviously proud of his truck and proud to be sitting high above other traffic. I started thinking about a global transportation solution. Should this guy, or any other person, have to give up their dream of driving a large vehicle simply because driving a hybrid or electric vehicle is better for the environment? Part of me says yes. But the part of me that identifies with that man, says no - we worked hard to reach those dreams, we shouldn't have to give up anything that we dream for and work for. There should be a way to have our cake and eat it too. The problem, of course, is that most hybrid vehicles and all known electric vehicles don't have the torque necessary to build big vehicles. Of course, if we really wanted to, we could overcome that obstacle. After all, many people said man would never fly or land on the moon. We put our efforts towards that and we accomplished both of them. But, have we already accomplished this? It turns out we have. Take a look: http://www.gizmag.com/go/1720/ and http://www.rockcrawler.com/features/newsshorts/03january/gm_combatt.asp. Though these articles aren't dated, one mentions that this vehicle will be ready for delivery in late 2003. So, if GM can build a powerful diesel-electric-fuel cell tri-brid for the military 7 years ago, why can't anyone build a decent large hybrid truck? After all, the train industry has been using diesel-electric hybrids for decades.
It's facts like this that just jump all over my "annoyance" button. GM tells consumers they can't build a decent hybrid or electric or fuel cell vehicle while they are actually building that very same thing. Before the internet, they could have successfully hidden those facts. They can't now.
But back to the point of this post...
What would I do if I was given the task of creating/building the next new vehicle for the consumers of this era? First, I would take a "moon shot" approach. I wouldn't hire anyone that didn't fully buy into the concept and that ever said no. Anyone that did that at NASA in the 60s found themselves unemployed. I would hire radicals. I'd hire the man that developed the 6-stroke engine, the guy that developed aerodynamic improvements that increased mileage to 90mpg - aerocivic.com, designers from Apple, the guys from Tesla and a few others. We would start the concept of building a large, fun vehicle for the masses that was efficient, environmentally friendly and high in torque. And our goal would be to have this vehicle designed and built in a year. After that, the next goal would be to make it cost comparable with the gas guzzlers of the world.
Is this bold? Absolutely. Is it doable? Of course it is. So why isn't it being done? No one is asking for it. The consumers vote with their wallets. When we start demanding a better product, the manufacturers have no choice but to give it to us. Start demanding today.
It's facts like this that just jump all over my "annoyance" button. GM tells consumers they can't build a decent hybrid or electric or fuel cell vehicle while they are actually building that very same thing. Before the internet, they could have successfully hidden those facts. They can't now.
But back to the point of this post...
What would I do if I was given the task of creating/building the next new vehicle for the consumers of this era? First, I would take a "moon shot" approach. I wouldn't hire anyone that didn't fully buy into the concept and that ever said no. Anyone that did that at NASA in the 60s found themselves unemployed. I would hire radicals. I'd hire the man that developed the 6-stroke engine, the guy that developed aerodynamic improvements that increased mileage to 90mpg - aerocivic.com, designers from Apple, the guys from Tesla and a few others. We would start the concept of building a large, fun vehicle for the masses that was efficient, environmentally friendly and high in torque. And our goal would be to have this vehicle designed and built in a year. After that, the next goal would be to make it cost comparable with the gas guzzlers of the world.
Is this bold? Absolutely. Is it doable? Of course it is. So why isn't it being done? No one is asking for it. The consumers vote with their wallets. When we start demanding a better product, the manufacturers have no choice but to give it to us. Start demanding today.
Monday, August 30, 2010
I'll recycle, but not if it costs money...
I was at a party two weekends ago and the hosts don't recycle. When asked why, they responded that their trash service charges extra for recycling. The guest asking about it (not me this time) responded that he would gladly recycle as long as it didn't cost him money.
As much as I wanted to, I didn't react or comment. But it got me thinking. How much does recycling cost? And is it worth it?
I didn't spend a lot of time researching the costs associated with recycling. Mainly for two reasons. One is that I don't have that kind of time. The other is that a few others have already done this work and written very good books on it. The main ones that come to mind are "The Story of Stuff" and "Cradle to Cradle". Both quick reads, one will learn more than they ever imagined about industry and trash. One of the most important lessons that screams it's obviousness is that there is no "away". Our stuff doesn't go away. It goes somewhere. But what then? If it's recycled, it becomes something else. Most products are actually downcycled. That is, their materials aren't good enough the second time around to re-become the same thing they were, so they have to become something less than they were in their first life. In so doing, they can only be "recycled" a few times before any and all usefulness has been used up and they go to the other place - a landfill. Another aspect that glares the obvious is the permanence of landfills. Items placed in a landfill stay there. Seemingly forever. Landfill excavations have found 50 year old newspapers that were completely legible and 10 year old banana peels. The main problem is that federal and state laws decry that landfills must be air and water-tight. And without air & water, nothing degrades. Ever. So, once something goes to a landfill, it stays there. I'll use another posting to rant about landfills...
Back to the cost of recycling...
Consider the capitalist system. In it, no company ever absorbs a cost that it doesn't have to. Instead, the company passes that cost down to the consumer. So, if making a product recyclable costs more or if that company is forced to accept returns of the product to recycle, they will roll those costs into the product. And then if your waste management company has a recycling program, the costs of it are included in all of their services. So, my friend at that party is already paying for recycling. The "downside" is that if they decide to go with their trash service company's recycling option, they would be paying for recycling twice.
But, consider the alternatives. The long-term cost of a landfill far outweighs the minimal cost of recycling. However, many a leader or organization has tried to get people to do things for the common good. And failed.
The successful leaders have motivated their people through financial means. And we have the means and ability to do that now. We're just not quite motivated yet. I wonder how much motivation we'd have if the "away" that we believe houses our trash was in the center of our communities. Or if our neighbors tried to burn their trash in our attached backyards. If that were the norm, would we then be motivated to find a better way?
I'd prefer we decided to do right before we reached those painful levels. But, will we?
As much as I wanted to, I didn't react or comment. But it got me thinking. How much does recycling cost? And is it worth it?
I didn't spend a lot of time researching the costs associated with recycling. Mainly for two reasons. One is that I don't have that kind of time. The other is that a few others have already done this work and written very good books on it. The main ones that come to mind are "The Story of Stuff" and "Cradle to Cradle". Both quick reads, one will learn more than they ever imagined about industry and trash. One of the most important lessons that screams it's obviousness is that there is no "away". Our stuff doesn't go away. It goes somewhere. But what then? If it's recycled, it becomes something else. Most products are actually downcycled. That is, their materials aren't good enough the second time around to re-become the same thing they were, so they have to become something less than they were in their first life. In so doing, they can only be "recycled" a few times before any and all usefulness has been used up and they go to the other place - a landfill. Another aspect that glares the obvious is the permanence of landfills. Items placed in a landfill stay there. Seemingly forever. Landfill excavations have found 50 year old newspapers that were completely legible and 10 year old banana peels. The main problem is that federal and state laws decry that landfills must be air and water-tight. And without air & water, nothing degrades. Ever. So, once something goes to a landfill, it stays there. I'll use another posting to rant about landfills...
Back to the cost of recycling...
Consider the capitalist system. In it, no company ever absorbs a cost that it doesn't have to. Instead, the company passes that cost down to the consumer. So, if making a product recyclable costs more or if that company is forced to accept returns of the product to recycle, they will roll those costs into the product. And then if your waste management company has a recycling program, the costs of it are included in all of their services. So, my friend at that party is already paying for recycling. The "downside" is that if they decide to go with their trash service company's recycling option, they would be paying for recycling twice.
But, consider the alternatives. The long-term cost of a landfill far outweighs the minimal cost of recycling. However, many a leader or organization has tried to get people to do things for the common good. And failed.
The successful leaders have motivated their people through financial means. And we have the means and ability to do that now. We're just not quite motivated yet. I wonder how much motivation we'd have if the "away" that we believe houses our trash was in the center of our communities. Or if our neighbors tried to burn their trash in our attached backyards. If that were the norm, would we then be motivated to find a better way?
I'd prefer we decided to do right before we reached those painful levels. But, will we?
Monday, June 28, 2010
Oil, oil everywhere...
The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has now been with us for almost 70 days. And yet we see no real end in the near future. The latest from BP is that they won't have the "relief" wells drilled and operational until August. Taken at their word, that's a long time to wait for "relief". In the meantime, a very large and diverse - and already threatened - ecosystem is being slowly destroyed. All the while having ripple effects ranging from land, air and sea wildlife to hundreds of local businesses all along the gulf states. While there are plenty of facts that are not being publicized, plenty of others are readily available. Scenes of oil soaked birds cover the internet, TV and print; YouTube videos of infested beaches; videos and blogs from divers near the spill and the relentless video feed from the leak itself all bombard us. So much so that we may be getting desensitized to it all. Let's look back at another oil related disaster - the Exxon Valdez. An undeniably devastating event that was in the news daily. But it isn't now. However, a quick search will show you that it is anything but forgotten. The EPA has a standing study for the area to see how it is recovering and what is and was affected. The latest report, taken 20 years after the spill, shows that there is still oil present in the bay and that the ecosystem in that area is still very fragile. Remember that when you realize that this BP spill has already released about four times as much oil into the ocean as Valdez did.
One of the many lessons for us to learn here is the future of our world. The longer we depend upon nonrenewable, fossil fuels, we will continue to endanger the world in which we live. Does that mean we need to completely cut our dependence on fossil fuels, completely change the way we live and switch over to renewables in the same manner that we would switch from Wal-Mart to Target? Yes and no. We do need to seriously cut our dependence on fossil fuels. Said best by Lisa Margonelli at TEDxOilSpill, "We need to stop fooling ourselves that we can have a green world without reducing our use of oil." However, the plastic that makes up solar panels comes from oil. The metals involved had to be mined from Earth. The materials had to be shipped to their locales (most of us don't know how to make our own solar panels, but look it up - it's easier than you think). The circuitry involved in making renewable energy "smart" includes metals that are toxic when leaked into our soil, water or air.
The fact is, we need to learn a balance between the industrial age, the technological age and the sustainable age. Which is where my company motto came from: "Humanity in Harmony with Habitat"
This is the only Earth we have, let's learn how to live with it not just on it.
One of the many lessons for us to learn here is the future of our world. The longer we depend upon nonrenewable, fossil fuels, we will continue to endanger the world in which we live. Does that mean we need to completely cut our dependence on fossil fuels, completely change the way we live and switch over to renewables in the same manner that we would switch from Wal-Mart to Target? Yes and no. We do need to seriously cut our dependence on fossil fuels. Said best by Lisa Margonelli at TEDxOilSpill, "We need to stop fooling ourselves that we can have a green world without reducing our use of oil." However, the plastic that makes up solar panels comes from oil. The metals involved had to be mined from Earth. The materials had to be shipped to their locales (most of us don't know how to make our own solar panels, but look it up - it's easier than you think). The circuitry involved in making renewable energy "smart" includes metals that are toxic when leaked into our soil, water or air.
The fact is, we need to learn a balance between the industrial age, the technological age and the sustainable age. Which is where my company motto came from: "Humanity in Harmony with Habitat"
This is the only Earth we have, let's learn how to live with it not just on it.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
80 US CEOs Call on Obama and Congress to Enact Clean Energy Reform
From treehugger.com
Well, it looks like there may be some hope for clean energy reform yet--even after the new decision from the Supreme Court has allowed corporations to use limitless funds to influence political elections. Today, a group of 80 major US companies, including eBay, PG&E, Virgin America, and Exelon, have issued a call for Obama and Congress to enact the clean energy legislation this year.
The group, united under the banner We Can Lead, has sent a letter to Obama arguing that the US is getting left in the dust in the clean energy sector. From their statement:
Saying that the U.S. is "falling behind" in the global clean energy race, the letter calls for forceful leadership to achieve legislation that will unleash innovation, drive economic growth, boost energy independence and decrease our carbon emissions. The letter comes just one week before President Obama delivers his State of the Union address on January 27th.
These business leaders are right--without clear incentives (like a price on carbon), US companies will continue to be mired in outdated, polluting technologies--and we'll continue to lose jobs to burgeoning clean tech industries overseas. These 80 businesses appear to understand this, and would like to be on the right side of a growing global trend.
Read the full letter to Obama at WeCanLead.org.
Well, it looks like there may be some hope for clean energy reform yet--even after the new decision from the Supreme Court has allowed corporations to use limitless funds to influence political elections. Today, a group of 80 major US companies, including eBay, PG&E, Virgin America, and Exelon, have issued a call for Obama and Congress to enact the clean energy legislation this year.
The group, united under the banner We Can Lead, has sent a letter to Obama arguing that the US is getting left in the dust in the clean energy sector. From their statement:
Saying that the U.S. is "falling behind" in the global clean energy race, the letter calls for forceful leadership to achieve legislation that will unleash innovation, drive economic growth, boost energy independence and decrease our carbon emissions. The letter comes just one week before President Obama delivers his State of the Union address on January 27th.
These business leaders are right--without clear incentives (like a price on carbon), US companies will continue to be mired in outdated, polluting technologies--and we'll continue to lose jobs to burgeoning clean tech industries overseas. These 80 businesses appear to understand this, and would like to be on the right side of a growing global trend.
Read the full letter to Obama at WeCanLead.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)