Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Delayed - 'a Google project that could save the world'.

Google - "It's time for Plan G"
Last year Google made me very excited about being involved in various energy projects that genuinely looked like 'good stuff'.

Realistic, viable and financially feasible plans began sprouting out of Google like their search engine results.

Then they used a genius idea to make their good ideas awesome by adding yours in a global collaboration. Thus began the 10^ 100^ project.

That's where I got on board, after a decade of planning my national energy and environmental programs I know I have one of the only concepts that has the focus on saving people and the planet without sacrificing our level of quality living or stifle advancements in technology.

So Google, where's the feedback?
  • My program met every criteria outlined
  • I want none of the money personally,
  • and it unequivocally solves our foreign oil interests, coal, nuclear, renewable, housing, energy grid, health, air and water problems...
You only gave me a 30 second clip and 1 page of info to 'sell this', as your project would not accept the full 600 page technical document.

Seriously, no one has a better plan, is the 10^ 100^ project real or a tragic hoax. The announcement dates keep moving and there was no confirmation of my submission.

I personally felt this program would be best in the hands of brilliance and not bureaucracy but, our nation desperately needs this now, please respond if you are serious or I will hand over the plan to the new Administration.


Environmental, Health and Safety Director

Stay up to date on googles response via:

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

O.K. Truths on Cap and Trades

Lets call it a truths...
I had a reader ask me a complex (only because it involves politics) questions about the sustainability of carbon 'cap n trade' and 'Carbon Tax' programs - sorry for the lengthy answer with relatively simple conclusions.   
I know a lot of my readers have ideas on how to make 'energy and resource conservation tax incentives' and it is the golden goose, I am NOT criticising such plans. I am only drawing out bankrupt ideals of yet another ponzi market scheme. There is not joking around, this is a trillion dollar market that big U.S. & U.K. investors that crashed see as a cash cow to pull them out... will we ever learn?
It is why Bloomberg is calling for a carbon tax... - Why wouldn't a person driven by tax wealth not want to tax the biggest potential commodity?
Simple math - "It is the largest investment in a falling marketplace"
Also considering what they do, why wouldn't ANY broker or trader not want to get into "carbon trades"? As carbon based life "trading carbon" is the best scam since bottling tap water. Just think a little, regardless of what you use as a source, how you move or store it... carbon is anything we eat, burn or move.
Taxing "air" we exhale (CO2) may even be $better$, ohhh wait, we are trying to do that ;-)

Comments to a 'Canadian ecologically orientated individual' on 'Cap-N-Trade'
Haase - I appreciate the academic diligence that helped these people become Professor's of Economics, but the economics their education is based on no longer exist... and Any economist that does not understand that taxing energy increases the price of food, water and every essential of life for the middle class should have their library card revoked.
Why carbon taxing will do nothing but more harm
Why there such great demand for the carbon trade and tax markets
What will work (short examples)
Given that, here is the gist of the problems facing the carbon tax and trade markets...
Based on one of my favourite scientific quotes: "that is so wrong, it is not even right" - understanding that an idea can be so far off that it misses the basic principals of every key element the ideas structure is held together by.
Carbon Tax Question...(from the email) What do you think about a carbon tax?
Here in the U.S. on the brink of a finical implosion we are talking about 1.25 Trillion Dollar Tax Increase
From - “simultaneously pushing a global warming tax bill that will further raise gas prices, home energy prices, and do untold damage to the American economy by imposing the largest tax increase in American history.” As a result, at least 43 million families will owe at least $2,300 more in taxes each year. Additionally, 18 million seniors will owe at least $2,200 more each year, and 27 million small businesses will be hit with a $4,100 tax hike. This monstrous budget surpasses the $3 trillion mark for the first time in our country’s history and includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending.
FACT: A MIT study concluded that the carbon tax approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015. (
EXAMPLE of a Carbon Tax Answer...
Tax is a necessary financial tool that helps build infrastructure in key areas that are critical to the stability of a community and government. We CAN have taxes on expendable and "non-essential items" that can definitely help people and the environment *(see notable quotes below). I will detail my tax option (protects consumers more than any existing law) in my upcoming report.
An example of Tax collected from "high carbon items" could be used to offset purchasing costs of "low carbon choices"...
 in lieu of "grossly one-sided" overrun subsides (i.e. the "high carb' tax from 100,000 trucks would allow 1,000 people to purchase solar panels or geothermal heat). People with big pockets will still buy luxurious McMansions and Bentleys but allow an elderly couple or single parent family help to heat their home. Lets not forget the top consumer purchase$ are still "non-essential" items. Rewarding consumption based on "financial good choices" enables the underprivileged to afford cleaner energy. Without question, "taxing luxury items" that have massive energy needs should be the law". But, taxing the basic necessities to sustain life, should be a crime against humanity.
But we are not talking about taxes that help people or the planet. This is a tax that is designed to 'punish without remorse' the working and the impoverished class. These taxes are to "force choices on others that are nearly impossible to require of ourselves".

The long term carbon tax answer?
Sustainable energy is just that, after capital costs are paid for, sustainable energy pays back continually to investors (i.e. tax payers) because we are not "paying outside sources or influences for ever demanded finite energy commodities that can only go up in price with scarcity".
Clearly there is a payback period IF these plans include "true sustainable energy". How is it that these Economists "do not offer tax payers a return on investment"? I do not think any tax payer would have a problem investing in their future. But, by showing no long term benefits other than "prevent polar bears from drowning by buying unicorn rainbow power" offers tax payers no future of reduction of their financial burden.
I have viewed several plans that offer "direct financial benefits to tax payers"...making a plan based on taxing at a continual loss is unsustainable.
Carbon "the Commodity"
Carbon (cap-n-trade) market trading "the perpetual poor machine"... Today we "reward bad behaviour by providing financial gains and punish good behaviour by taxing the underprivileged".
The bad news (this is a market traders dream)
A market based on trading an infinite commodity (Carbon) will create a market that pits the financial powers of market traders and investors against naive consumers to exploit every dollar possible. Speculators will be able to make "historical runs on money" by simply generating ever changing market reports to reflect which "carbon sources investors should move to" with the top players historically staying ahead of these shifts by being the parties who generate the same speculation that generates the reports. Driving dividends to the market creators while pulling these dividends from weak investors - ie. "the perpetual poor machine".
This is a better scheme than even the billion dollar tax subsidized ethanol market where ethanol production uses more petroleum than it saves (great for both AG & OIL markets)
The good news (short life for losers)
Unlike the "ARM based American market", smart investors will see this "the perpetual poor machine" before it grows into a economy collapsing mistake.
The example of this insanity (doing the same things wrong over and over and expecting different results)
Where is all this dumb money coming from? Retirees who just lost the value of their homes and nearly everything in the bank. Tragically, the same individuals in government who push consumers to invest in paper money, federal dollars and market based trading will force the general population of non-investors (through flawed IRA's and 401k's) into programs that continue to include volatile market commodities (like mortgage and carbon) in public lumped retirement programs.
The mortgages fiasco is a great model as it is purely made up by the market, driven by speculators and sold to the public as a "stable investment". It is not real, tangible or a finite resource... just a "fear and greed" market.
Carbon quotes of mine you can use:
We are carbon based life forms that develop nearly everything into carbon based materials and if we were to "tax the air we breath" it would be less lucrative than taxing carbon. - Haase
Commodity prices are based on finite resources that hold lifetime use values which can be gauged, measured and then create trade market prices that will continue to grow as the commodity runs out. Thus, it offers both a positive return to consumers, investors and marketers during this process. Trading a infinite resource is not technically a "commodity market" - Haase

Thanks for asking these important questions. I hope I have provided some "fuel for thought"
Now my question to these same individuals believing carbon trading and taxes will save us:
We can not provide enough clean water or air for millions of impoverished with the same amount dying every year with "pollution" listed as the cause (not carbon). Nearly one third of our mammals (food chain) are entering the endangered list, with 1000's of entire aquatic and amphibian species they feed on disappearing. They die daily and their numbers are growing exponentially.
How does you economic plan help them and can "carbon offsets" or "carbon taxes" offset any of these souls?
Notable quotes on subject:
GRIST: Coal-fired plants will cost a lot more than natural gas once climate legislation is in place, and consumers will foot the bill "Neither are a cleaner or sustainable solution"
The world has gone crazy when Ralph Nader rants are the most "sane" options...
NADER: question - You propose a carbon pollution tax, for instance. How would that work?
NADER: answer - You tax inefficient technology and you tax pollution. The carbon tax would not be a credit exchange [as in a cap-and-trade program], which can be easily manipulated. It would be a straight-out tax on hydrocarbon production at the production source -- where it's far, far removed from consumers and forces better choices of technology from the get-go. Keep in mind that we're currently paying six, seven dollars a gallon for gasoline if you include all the military expenditures to safeguard the global oil pipeline. That's something that taxpayers are paying for, even if it doesn't show at the pump.
How to make money doing it?
FURTHER: You can basically eliminate all direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear and say, "Let's have a level playing field." Or you could actively increase tax credits and subsidies to solar power because it has superior environmental and geopolitical benefits. Furthermore, the government's a big customer -- maybe it can take its entire procurement power and direct it toward solar energy and sustainable technology.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Change "A Green New Deal"?

Ilargi: Dear Barack (May a deity of your preference guide your decisions),
After seeing you flash by inescapably in the media every single day for what feels like the past 800 years, I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, despite my deep and profound mistrust of the American corporate political theatre.
That said, I haven’t so far for a moment had the idea that you have a full and firm grasp of what happens in the nation's economy. Mind you, it's obviously possible that you are hiding what you truly know, since you can't get elected on what is perceived by voters as an overly pessimistic message.
But, if you'll excuse me, for now I’ll go with my instinctive notion that you don’t really understand the state of the US financial system. By that I mean that you seem to have the idea that it is possible to revive the economy if only you adopt a set of tax measures, throw in a bag-full of mortgage relief for those worst hit, and create jobs in fields that people label 'sustainable' and/or 'the foundation of tomorrow’s economy'.
The thing is, Y O’Bama, that these notions miss that elusive target named 'reality' by a mile and a half.
New GREED Deal...
Your task will be far more formidable than I think you realize. It's not Franklin D. Roosevelt that you should look at for an example, it's not about turning the economy around, this is not the 1930‘s. The problems you will soon face are much worse than the ones he dealt with.
If you're looking to find a presidential role model for what you are about to face, you need to go back much further in history. You have to look at Abraham Lincoln for guidance. Your most daunting task is not turning the economy around. You will be remembered in history as the man who either did or did not save the Republic.
...The survival of the republic is in your hands, Y O'Bama. I urge you to look back at what went through Lincoln's head when he was confronted with the threat of its demise, and what he decided to do to prevent it. No use being afraid of the reactions, it will be an awfully hard ride no matter what you choose.
Might as well have the courage to do what must be done.
Read full from automaticearth

Nice post... had to link to this.
Not understanding the 'eco-nomical vs the economical' difference will be the final bullet to the head of our nation.
As we sink into the greatest economic depression of our generation we will inadvertently cut our nations emissions lower than all kyoto and U.N. proposals to U.S. emissions. All within the next decade (not 2030).
What we need is someone to present this inarguable fact to the people who are making Obamas decisions for him.
If we do not. We will tax the very air plants breath (CO2) and the substance human life is comprised of (carbon).
NONE of this has to do with carbon or CO2 or global warming... 
'IF' it did the following facts could be implemented world wide to end it.
Inarguable facts:
Our nation can run several times over on free and nearly limitless geothermal energy:,0,7002141.story
Adding 45 more nuclear facilities would do NOTHING to help.
Solar and wind power have not proven to ROI any nation since the carter era and can not power our nations war machine that is the third largest user of fossil fuels in the world.
It is about taxing everyone for everything to give the few unlimited power and sustainable control.
Really, sit down and listen to the facts in the message. Then base 'change' on reality.
Reality based diplomacy... now that would be 'change'.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

When we get our $10 Million from google it will Change the World

While $1.5 Million would be enough for our demonstration project, the extra $8.5 Million lets us expand the financial, health and environmental impact of this plan.
No more kiddin around, Google knows the magic number.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Salvation if we want it... but we all fear change.

Word facts... Humanity stands on the threshold of a peaceful and prosperous future,
Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it.
Tell them something new and they will hate you for it
- George Monbiot
Energy czars persuade the persuadable to continue a future built by destroying finite resources 
"the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce."
We've seen the future ... and we may not be doomed
UN report finds life is getting better for people worldwide – but that governments are failing to grasp the opportunities offered at 'a unique time'.
Humanity stands on the threshold of a peaceful and prosperous future, with an unprecedented ability to extend lifespans and increase the power of ordinary people – but is likely to blow it through inequality, violence and environmental degradation. And governments are not equipped to ensure that the opportunities are seized and disasters averted.
So says a massive new international report, due to be published late this month, and obtained by The Independent on Sunday. Backed by organisations ranging from Unesco to the US army, the World Bank to the Rockefeller Foundation, the 2008 State of the Future report runs to 6,300 pages and draws on contributions from 2,500 experts around the globe.
Its warning is all the more stark for eschewing doom and gloom. "The future continues to get better for most of the world," it concludes, "but a series of tipping points could drastically alter global prospects."
... "This is a unique time in history.  It is increasingly clear that the world has the resources to address our common challenges. Ours is the first generation with the means for many to know the world as a whole, identify global improvement systems, and seek to improve [them]."
What is more, say the authors of the report, produced by the Millennium Project of the World Federation of the United Nations Associations, many important things are already getting better. Life expectancy and literacy rates are increasing worldwide, while infant mortality and the number of armed conflicts have been falling fast. Per capita income has been growing strongly enough to cut poverty by more than half by 2015
Even better, it says, "advances in science, technology, education, economics and management seem capable of making the world work far better than it does today". "collective intelligence for just-in-time knowledge to inform decisions".
The report reserves its greatest enthusiasm for the internet, which it says is "already the most powerful force for globalisation, democratisation, economic growth and education in history.
Just over one-third of humanity still lives in the 43 countries with authoritarian regimes, but half of these people are in China.
On the other hand, the report warns "half the world is vulnerable to social instability and violence due to rising food and energy prices, failing states, falling water tables, climate change, decreasing water-food-energy supply per person, desertification and increasing migrations due to political, environmental and economic conditions" – threaten to undo the improvements of recent years and blight the chance of a better future.
Yet nuclear power – the solution increasingly favoured by governments, which are planning to add another 350 reactors to the 438 already operating around the world – will not do the job. "For nuclear energy to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, about 2,000 nuclear power plants would have to be built, at $5-15bn per plant, over 15 years – and possibly an additional 8,000 plants beyond that to 2050."
The report says that there is not enough uranium in the world to fuel all those reactors, that another Chernobyl-type accident could halt the expansion in its tracks, and that the rapid spread of the atom around the world increases the chances of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
There are grounds for hope... But the report's authors say that governments are not up to the job: "Many of the world's decision-making processes are inefficient, slow and ill-informed, especially when given the new demands from increasing complexity [and] globalisation." They call on world leaders to do more long-term planning, and to join in global approaches to the interlocking crises. "There seems to be an interest in creating global strategies, but it needs a little push. There's more within us now to collaborate in the face of shared problems."

Friday, June 13, 2008

Blogger quote of the week: "self-professed" environmentalist

QUOTE - "self-professed" environmentalist, ...apparently because they wore a Greenpeace button in college, they can be utterly dismissive and apathetic to long term ecological services and biodiversity. "professing" (that instead of conserving and preserving) they want to "save the environment" through "green purchasing power, using such arguments as building more "green" homes and buying more "green" cars that are powered by "green" energy harvesting our very biosphere as fuel to power it. Their self-mythologies are not substitutes for the scholarship and expertise that they lack; if anything, their reliance on ego and personality only drives home their intellectual bankruptcy...
Environmentalism is a religion run by social, short sighted "feel good" actions led by reactivists.
Conservation is a science driven by Environmentalists whose profession it is to preserve life.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

SUV's savings Environment and Filling up at .$63 per gallon

Just imagine a world filling up your SUV for $50, reducing pollution 60% and pulling 50% of foreign oil into the U.S. economy...

Not a a hydrogen "hoop dream" or ethanol scam... just the facts on REAL clean fuel alternatives. 

  • Nearly 87% of U.S. natural gas used is domestically produced
  • 60-90% less smog-producing pollutants
  • 30-40% less greenhouse gas emissions
  • Less expensive than gasoline

While the national average price of gasoline is now $4, some are happily filling up on compressed natural gas (CNG) at $0.63 per gallon. That's the country's lowest price for CNG, which has understandably caused a surge in demand for vehicles running on a fuel that one man described as "practically free."

So far, CNG vehicles haven't made a blip on my radar screen, even though the group Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVA) estimates there are 150,000 NGVs on U.S. roads today and over 5 million worldwide. It took a phone call from sunny Southern Utah to clue me in to recent developments, which include a local refueling station overflowing with CNG-hungry vehicles.

There are about 1500 CNG refueling stations in the US, which is about the same number of commercial stations offering E85 ethanol blends. Utah has a total of 91 CNG filling stations, most of which are reserved for commercial fleet use, but there are 20 open to the public. According to an article by the Associated Press, you could drive Utah from top to bottom and hit 22 different stations offering compressed natural gas.

One of the major benefits of using compressed natural gas is a significant reduction in emissions when compared to gasoline. Compressed natural gas is touted as the "cleanest burning" alternative fuel available, since the simplicity of the methane molecule reduces tailpipe emissions of different pollutants by 35-97%. Not quite as dramatic is the reduction in net greenhouse-gas emissions, which is about the same as corn-grain ethanol at about a 20% reduction over gasoline.

What about LPG/CNG? 

LPG vehicles emit about one-third fewer reactive organic gases than gasoline-fueled vehicles. Nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide emissions are also 20% and 60% less, respectively. Unlike gasoline-fueled vehicles, there are no evaporative emissions while LPG vehicles are running or parked, because LPG fuel systems are tightly sealed. Small amounts of LPG may escape into the atmosphere during refueling, but these vapors are 50% less reactive than gasoline vapors, so they have less of a tendency to generate smog-forming ozone. LPG also has an extremely low sulfur content.

LPG delivers roughly the same power, acceleration, and cruising speed characteristics as gasoline .... LPG's high octane rating (around 105) means that an LPG engine's power output and fuel efficiency can be increased beyond what would be possible with a gasoline engine without causing destructive knocking. Such fine-tuning can help compensate for the fuel's lower energy density.

Additional Information

Mitch asked me "What Fuel Do I like?"... easy answer: cheap, abundant, clean CNG/LPG

Saturday, May 3, 2008

U.S. Global Warming Emission Conspiracy ?

The data no one wants to include in the news... U.S. is leading the world in emission reductions
In 2006, the U.S. economy expanded at the real and robust rate of 2.9 per cent – a decent rate of growth for any advanced economy. Economic growth necessarily requires more consumption of energy, right? Economic growth necessarily requires more greenhouse gas emissions, right?
Here's a quick Q&A to test these environmental assumptions.
Question: By what percentage did U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increase in 2006?  minus 1.5 per cent.
In 2006, GHG emissions in the U.S. did not increase, notwithstanding either the revved-up economy or the environmental reputation of Republican President George W. Bush. Rather, they decreased in absolute terms – for the first time ever in the U.S. in a growth-year economy.
An independent statistical agency in the U.S. Energy Department, the EIA reports total American GHG emissions in 2006 , down 105.8 MMT.
This is a singular U.S. achievement, demonstrating that technological advances, voluntary actions by millions of people and higher oil prices can quickly drive decisive environmental improvements. The U.S. economy has successfully squeezed more and more production from a dollar's worth of energy for years. Now, it has squeezed more production still – from less than a dollar's worth of energy. Indeed, EIA reports that U.S. "greenhouse gas intensity" – a measure of greenhouse gases produced per million dollars of gross domestic product – fell by a whopping 4.2 per cent in 2005, the largest annual decrease ever.
Although Mr. Bush is widely regarded as indifferent to environmental causes, he set the U.S. on this particular cause – more energy bang for the buck – in 2002, well before climate change had hit its current, frenzied intensity. Within the decade, Mr. Bush presciently said, the U.S. would reduce GHG intensity by 18 per cent, meaning that the U.S. would become one-fifth more energy efficient within 10 years. From 2002 through 2005, U.S. emissions intensity has declined 2.5 per cent a year. With the extraordinary decline in 2006, the U.S. has already achieved five-ninths of its goal and could fully achieve it two years early.
In 2006, the EIA says, the U.S. reduced its cumulative increase in GHG emissions since 1990 to 15.1 per cent from 16.8 per cent. The original and controversial Kyoto target for developed economies was a reduction in emissions to the 1990 level. Were the American achievements of 2006 to persist, the U.S. could ironically meet the Kyoto objective by 2011 – even though the country never ratified the Kyoto Protocol and never embraced its objectives. Environment Canada, incidentally, reports that Canadian emissions, at the end of 2005 (the most recent year available), exceeded Kyoto objectives by 32.7 per cent.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Global Warming "War" on the world

The recent TIME article on "How to Win the War on Global Warming", may not offer viable solutions for future energy demands of the U.S... but, it does outline a "world economic war on the third world".

TIME states: No one yet has a comprehensive plan for how we could do so again, but everyone agrees on what the biggest parts of the plan would be. Here's our blueprint for how America can fight—and win—the war on global warming...

Summarized by Haase
  • Tax billion$ in carbon energy sources we "do not like", to invest in potentially higher carbon producing sources that "appear to be" greener

  • Invest billions to rehash old ideas that failed for decades under grants and subsides with "hope" of yield ing better results

  • Continue to divert billions in wind, solar and bio-energy with "hope" that they become viable enough in the next 10 years to "catch up" with our massive demands

U.S. is losing. Indeed, if we're fighting at all—and by most accounts, we're not—we're fighting on the wrong side. ...the U.S. remains the land of the Hummer with vague promises of manufacturing fuel from switchgrass or powering cars with hydrogen—someday... taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all.

Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to naive wish lists that could cripple America's growth.

Think I'm Kidding? Read the article here

TIME suggests: devising a coherent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with farsighted goals, combines government activism with private-sector enterprise and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, (What kind of vague langue is this?)

TIME - The most important part of a blueprint to contain climate change is to put a charge on carbon emissions. "Cap and trade changes everything," says Krupp.

Soooo wrong their not even "right".

FACT - Krupp. may be fatality flawed in the amount of financial pain and human suffering this carbon market trading will put onto the world. What good for industrialized nations will reign a "holocaust" on the third world. - Haase

TIME Points out - Dramatic reductions in U.S. emissions won't bring the intended environmental benefits if emissions by other countries increase at the same time. The problem is, if we don't clean up our own mess because developing giants don't have to, what's the incentive for them to clean up theirs? "If we don't act, China and India will simply hide behind America's skirts of inactions and take no steps of their own," says Senator John Warner of Virginia.

FACT - The third world has NO means or incentive to follow U.S. actions and we are a decade away from a coherent dialogue.

In fact, carbonizing rapidly industrializing economies may indeed lead to a war...

Particularly when the painful cuts made by North America, Western Europe and a handful of other OECD economies are dwarfed by the emission trail spewing from China and the rest of the developing world.

As OECD countries begin to tax their own economies by charging growing fees on CO2 emissions, their their trading partners will diminish rapidly.... killing the GDP of those countries whose supply chains depend on OECD countries



FACT: Developing World - Principal Source of Emissions (Source )
Total global emissions have risen by a cumulative 25% since the beginning of the decade. But only a small fraction of those emissions came from North America, Western Europe and OECD economies. In fact, emissions in the most advanced economies of the world have grown by a paltry 5%, one-tenth the 50% increase seen of the developing world.

Over the last seven years, China and other developing nations consist of 90% of Emissions Growth...So great has the recent rise in emissions growth in the developing world been that as of 2005, it surpassed the OECD in total emissions at a massive 2,500 million metric tonnes (mmt) or nearly 55% of global emissions.

Within a decade they will account for more than two-thirds.


How much will it squeeze the U.S. Economy?

TIME - 2% of the GDP for a few years...
It's true that there will be costs associated with any carbon-pricing plan; ending climate change won't be free. "You want a clean environment, you have to pay for it," says Peter Fusaro, founder of the green investment group.

All based on a flawed hope that;...carbon cap with teeth will boost electricity and gas prices in the short term, before carbon-free alternatives can be scaled to market, and that will hurt those already struggling to heat their homes and fill their tanks.

TIME - Offering suggestions that are no better than my Grandmas; America has long been astoundingly wasteful about energy use, but for years, that mattered little because power and fuel were so cheap. "Until recently, using more energy was a way to get more productive," says Kevin Surace, of a green building company. "That doesn't change until energy costs go substantially up."

Think of simple, costless changes like turning off the lights in offices at night—that's "money on the table," Efficiency standards could be put in place for household appliances and lighting as well.

And I would love to see the spreadsheet that depicts this; the words of efficiency guru Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. MGI says annual industry-wide investments of $170 billion per year in efficiency improvements like green buildings and higher-mileage cars could yield an additional $900 billion per year in savings by 2020.

TIME - Well it's a crap shoot... go for it!;
But the good news is that there are already thousands of very smart people working on alternative energy...buzzing that "the biggest bubbling is happening in California,"

Adding that:

That's where government can help...whip hand to the process. A firm carbon price will accelerate creativity by making alternatives that much more economical.

TIME - Pointing out that
"There's no shortage of ways to spend whatever money is made available." Solar, Wind power, tidal power, geothermal energy and even nuclear fusion—any of which could take off with enough luck and money.

Suggesting that; Washington should flood the zone with research funding, and refrain from trying to pick a winner... (yikes)

All spending BILLIONS more rehashing a short sighted, misguided future driven by venture capitalist; "developing ways to make better biofuels out of feedstocks like wood chips"???

Finally they suggest more "micropolicies, like tax credits," to further nickel and dime us on feed small misguided projects that offer no ROI.

Summary if we took all the steps outlined by TIME here:
national cap-and-trade system; to break the economy of third world nations
tougher energy-efficiency mandates; should be real easy if we throw money at problems
investments billions more in new public and private green technologies; without strategic investment return projections
absorbing perhaps 2% to 3% of gdp a year for some time; to force further decline of world economy

Going green: What could be redder... After formally insulting our nation and taxpayers by calling America a "loser" in the global warming fight; Kristin Modesto, hails "California" as the "leader" with Schwarzenegger, leading the way on global warming... and yes, she is from California.

What happened to one nation under GOD?

Dear TIME, we have strong a comprehensive plan and very few would agree with yours (unless they are carbon market investors)..

Why wage "war" when we can enjoy and prosper from the obvious opportunities in world energy and trading?

This should NEVER be a war effort, but a business plan within global partnerships with ALL.

For over three decades the science and prevention of "global warming" have not changed – but political and media reaction to it has.

I did love the image by Fredrik Brodén in the headlines... very nice TIME;

Now spend more effort on content. - Haase

Sunday, April 27, 2008

The Template for Climate Crisis "Cause"

Biofuels give us an idea what we can expect from "reactive environmental campaigns". All in the name of "the global warming crisis", ...

According to many environmentalists this has accomplished the following:

  • Helped drive up food prices, contributing to a global crisis;
  • Led to "increased environmental damage," including dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico so polluted by fertilizer runoff that nothing can live;
  • Created "incentives for global deforestation, including in the Amazon basin";
  • Reduced U.S. oil consumption by 1% while eating up 25% of our corn production.

If carbon-induced global warming is "Eco-Reactivist's" primary concern then, more food based biofuels will continue to make it worse by clearing agricultural land and rainforests, which absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide.

The paradox is that "in viral medias" short sighted focus on quick fixes that have proven to fail since the 70's, may in actuality cause a enough to environmental damage and pollution to create "true manmade global warming".

By now everyone has witnessed the devastation of food based, subsidized biofuels. Once started, government initiatives are difficult if not impossible to stop, no matter how disastrous.

Taxpayers will still be subsidizing ruinous biofuels when the next catastrophic solution to the imaginary climate crisis is imposed.

This is a call to ALL regulators, policy makers and academic leaders to address this pandemic push to reactively control our planets finite energy, food, fuel and water supplies by posting your years of data and ignored regulations. (find out more at

IF our nations leaders continue : "Base Legislation on newspaper headlines"... "Eco-Reactivist's" may push current energy and environmental problems past the point where even I see a viable solution. - Haase

Message from "Earthdays Daughter" - a long way to go...

38 years later, we have a long way to go before our air is healthy, our water is clean, our communities are sustainable...

A pivotal moment for the environment -We are at a pivotal moment. Unless we act quickly and dramatically to alter our current energy path, climate change will trump all other efforts to protect and preserve our water, air, land and wildlife. Our challenge is to rapidly develop and deploy technologies that put us on a sustainable energy path before irreversible climate change overwhelms us. It turns out this challenge also is an opportunity to transform our economy and assert our energy independence and, in doing so, improve our security as a nation. Tia Nelson, daughter of Earth Day founder Sen. Gaylord Nelson.

Our challenge is to transform understanding into action, and there is no question that climate change must be at the top of our action list.

We know how to do it, and it's effective - Reflecting on the many environmental challenges we face, we should recognize the tremendous progress made since 1970. Our air and water are much cleaner because of the movement spearheaded by Gaylord Nelson. Some argued that regulation would damage our economy. Instead, we adapted. New technologies were developed, and a strong environmental ethic was created. We are much better off because of the changes driven by Earth Day. Roy Thilly is president and chief executive of Wisconsin Public Power Inc.

We're still off track - Much has happened since the first Earth Day. Besides being more tuned in to our relationship with our surroundings and our role in protecting air, water and natural resources for the future, we're witnessing economic development in countries with soaring populations, increasing demand for energy and raw materials.

As such, we can no longer continue along as we did when we celebrated the first Earth Day with Gaylord Nelson in 1970. With American ingenuity and the help of like-minded people in the faith, union and business worlds - and with the assistance of our friends and neighbors - we can increase the use of affordable, renewable energy; we can make our homes, cars and buildings more energy efficient; we can save money, boost the economy and create jobs; - all while leaving a planet that's safe and clean for our children. Eric Uram is conservation chair of the Sierra Club.

Still a long way to go- Much has been accomplished since the first Earth Day, but more needs to be done.

The Clean Air Act amendments passed in 1970 aimed to make our air healthy and to keep it that way. But we still have unhealthy levels of smog and soot in much of Wisconsin, especially in the summer. The Clean Water Act passed in 1972 had a goal of making our lakes and rivers "fishable and swimmable" by 1983, but years later we have beach closings due to excessive pollution and health advisories warning us not to eat too many fish due to mercury contamination.

Certainly, these landmark laws and others have resulted in environmental improvements. Additionally, sewage treatment plants drastically improved some waters such as the Wisconsin and Fox rivers that were largely devoid of aquatic life in 1970 due to the dumping of raw sewage. Yet we still have sewage overflows and excessive nutrient and chemical loading into our waters from polluted runoff.

And some things never seem to change: In the 1970s and today, coal-burning power plants remain our largest sources of air pollution. Several large coal plants were built 30 years ago; today, we have three more under construction. As Wisconsin begins to seriously address global warming pollution, these new coal plants, and 14 older dirty ones in our state, will make significant reductions of greenhouse gases a major challenge. - Keith Reopelle is program director for Clean Wisconsin.

Gaylord Nelson - "The ultimate test of man's conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard."

Read full from JSonline