Lower Pollution Levels Lead To A Vibrant Economy

Posted on November 29, 2007 by Doug Nicodemus

Germany is a perfect example of how producing energy with no pollution (in many case no burning) leads to an economic expansion and creates new good paying jobs. Bush and the Republicans have been wrong all along. Nixon, Reagan and Bush oh my!

Green revolution in the making –

innovative German

environmental protection efforts

Sierra, Jan-Feb, 1995 by Curtis Moore

<< Page 1 Continued from page 6. Previous | Next

The cumulative effect of all these programs is to place Germany in a commanding position as nations beset with environmental problems search for ways to reduce pollution quickly and inexpensively. Thailand, for example, decided to install scrubbers on its coal-fired power plants after a single episode of air pollution in Mae Mo District sent more than 4,000 of its citizens to doctors and hospitals. Smog-bound Mexico City has been forced to implement emissions controls on cars and factories. Taiwan is even going so far as to require catalytic converters for motorcycles. Such mandates will almost inevitably benefit Germany because, as Harvard Business School economist Michael Porter explains, “Germany has had perhaps the world’s tightest regulations in stationary air-pollution control, and German companies appear to hold a wide lead in patenting–and exporting–air pollution and other environmental technologies.”

In the United States, however, where environmental standards were relaxed by a succession of Reagan/Bush appointees, often in the name of competitiveness, “as much as 70 percent of the air pollution control equipment sold…is produced by foreign companies,” according to Porter, whose 855-page study of industrial economies, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, examines the impact of environmental regulations on competitiveness.

Germany’s actions continue to contrast sharply with those of the United States, even under President Clinton, whom most environmentalists supported as the green answer to George Bush. Germany’s emissions limits on power plants and incinerators are 4 to 300 times more stringent than those of the United States. German companies that generate electricity from wind, solar, or other renewable forms of power are reimbursed at twice to three times U.S. levels. German recycling is mandatory, while American programs are usually voluntary where they exist at all.

Still, support for Germany’s environmental initiatives is by no means unanimous. Wolfgang Hilger, for example, the chairman of Hoechst, Germany’s largest chemical company, complained bitterly in 1991 that the government had lost all sense of proportion. He claimed that regulations had jeopardized 250 jobs at his company, and threatened it with a $100-million loss. But Hilger represents a minority view. Most German citizens and businesses remain convinced both that environmental protection is essential and that the technological innovation stimulated by stringent environmental requirements will, over the long term, strengthen their national productivity and competitiveness.

Tragically, U.S. political leaders continue to embrace the outmoded and false view that the environment can be protected only at the expense of the economy, when the truth is precisely the opposite. Meanwhile, products of American genius continue to depart for Japan, Germany, and other nations, only to be sold back to U.S. industry sometime in the future. So far, the homes-from-pollution process hasn’t traveled full circle back to its place of invention in the United States. But don’t be surprised if sometime soon you see a piece of wallboard being nailed into a new office or a remodeled home only to find it boldly emblazoned: “Made in Germany.”

What Do G.E. and Chevron have in Common besides being Environmental Pricks?

Posted on November 28, 2007 by Doug Nicodemus

When you type “Hot Environmental Topics” into google search, they are the FIRST TWO websites that pop-up. I am not kidding! So I clicked on the first link. The contradictions are amazing:

http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/emergingenergy/

The page you go in at is all gushy about the future but when you click on their global warming page whoa does the corporate speak snap into play?

Q. What is Chevron’s position on The Kyoto Protocol?

A. The Kyoto Protocol assigns mandatory emission limits of greenhouse gasses to signatory nations. We support the intentions of Kyoto in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and respect the individual countries that have made the decisions to sign. However, while we support the global engagement that it envisions, we believe it focuses on signing up many countries rather than truly engaging the 10 – 12 critical emitting countries. Further, we think it asks for emission reductions that are too aggressive too quickly, given the technologies that are currently available. Finally, we don’t think the economic consequences are fully outlined.

Q. Does Chevron support measures such as California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32)?

A. In 2006, California Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. The legislation seeks to cap California’s greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020.

Again, we support the intentions of the state in reducing GHG emissions. But we believe that effective mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions can only occur at a global level, given that climate change is a global issue. This requires coordinated national frameworks, and fragmented actions by individual states have the potential for undue economic costs without effectively mitigating the climate change risk.

We have experience with state–by–state and region–by–region regulatory approaches, and these have not been favorable to consumers.

Bottomline “YOU CAN’T TELL US WHAT TO DO”

When you click on General Electric’s web site you get very pretty animated stuff. Do these guys have bucks or what?

http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/index.html?kw=environmental%20issues&c_id=environmental#home

But the first thing they offer up is CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY! Sorry Caz I wish I was a good enough blogger to put up the video but this is the link:

http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/index.html?kw=environmental%20issues&c_id=environmental#tampa

Everyone should ask google how this is possible? Especially after they announce that they are going to spend big bucks on clean energy production??????

Springfield Has A New Architectural Standard

Posted on November 27, 2007 by Doug Nicodemus

A new standard has been set for any new buildings in Springfield and Central Illinois in general. While I think they should have included some generation capacity, its pretty good. Please see the specifications below:

Melotte Morse Leonatti, Ltd.

213’/2 South Sixth Street, Springfield, Illinois 62701-1502 (217)789-9515 FAX (217)789-9518

illinois municipal electric agency headquarters

building fact sheet

features:

• project team:

o owner: illinois municipal electric agency o architect: melotte morse leonatti, ltd. o engineer: eta engineers o contractor: o’shea builders

• prairie style influences• 2.5 acre lot, 75 stall parking lot• 33.OOO gross square feet• s-bay garage• 36 seat board room with integrated AV and voting, 25 seat gallery• executive conference facility with integrated AV & phone• 24/7/365 CONTROL CENTER IN 3,53O SQUARE FOOT TORNADO SHELTER (DESIGNED FOR

category F5 storms) with 72 hour generator backup

green features:

• alternative transportation (Bus rte, car pools, Low CO2 cars)• bicycle storage/shower

•—»- “cool” roofing/paving, light pollution reduction

• goal of 3o% water use reduction• building envelope 16% better than code• 10o% geoexchange (geothermal) heating/cooling:

o 82 tons capacity – 54 tons = bl_dg. 28 tons = data racks

o methalene solution in > 5o,ooo feet of polyethelene piping

o 1 1 high efficiency heat pumps — each heat pump a zone

o 6 loops (thermal exchange zones) of (1 2) 4″ diameter holes, 3oo feet deep

— reverse return system

o fossil fuel consumption = O at the building o energy savings: 84,601 kwh/year over similar water source heat pump

system. $6,10o estimated annual energy savings over conventional

system (as defined by ashrae 9o: electric boiler for heat and air-cooled

chiller/vav system for cooling) — 3o%

• fundamental & enhanced commissioning• goal of 5o% construction waste diversion• goal of 2O% recycled content a 2O% regional materials• automatic lighting controls:

o interior based on available daylight and occupancy o exterior based on astronomical time clock

• daylighting/views, operable windows• Low VOC finishes/indoor air quality• goal of silver level LEED certification

Rails C. Melotte, A.I.A. • Richard R. Morse, A.I.A. • David J. Leonatti, A.I.A. • T. David Parker, A.I.A., Principals

Darrell R. Schaver, Associate

Why Ray Lahood is not running for the 18th District?

Posted on November 26, 2007 by Doug Nicodemus

Here is the real reason that Ray Lahood is not running for Congress again. He sent me this letter after I wrote him to support increases in the CAFE Standards. When he finally gets around to it in the letter below…it turns out he supports a much lower CAFE Standard than I was asking for. In fact its the “Floor” or the lowest standard that President Bush Proposed!

The politicians have been told for years by the coal, oil, gas and nuclear industries that:

1. renewables are “years” away from being able to helpay LaHood Member of Congress

2. nuclear will have to be part of the mix

3. that we must drill and mine on environmentally sensitive areas to be energy self sufficient

4. people who say other wise are out to destroy our economy

They have said it for so long that the politicans came to believe it. Now that the world is changing the energy companies can’t say “oh we were lieing to make more money”. So they are just mum and as the Environmental Storm brews all the dinosaurs are running to get out of the road.

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

select intelligence oversight panel ranking member

subcommittee onagriculture, rural development,

food and drug administration,

and related agencies CONGRESSMAN RAY LAHOOD

subcommittee onlegislative branch 18TH DISTRICT, ILLINOIS

November 14, 2007

Mr. Doug Nicodemus

948 E. Adams

Riverton, IL 62561

Dear Doug:

Thank you for contacting me and sharing your concerns about global warming and our nation’s energy supply. It was good to hear from you on these important issues, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

America must take responsibility for its energy needs, decrease our dependence on foreign oil, promote clean renewable energy sources, and implement a plan to keep our economy growing and our nation safe. It is my understanding that, even though the United States is the world’s third largest crude oil producer, less than 40 percent of the crude oil used by U.S. refineries was produced in the United States. About 50 percent of our petroleum imports are from countries in the Western Hemisphere, with 20 percent from the Persian Gulf, 15 percent from Africa, and 15 percent from other regions. Given these facts, I believe that we need to continue to research and develop alternative fuel choices, reduce our consumption of oil through conservation, and work to increase our domestic petroleum supply.

Any energy policy that addresses our petroleum needs must look at increasing our domestic supply. Several areas in the country offer opportunities worth exploring to increase domestic petroleum production, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), other areas in Alaska, the Rocky Mountain region, and along the continental shelf. The technology exists where we can safely extract oil and natural gas from these areas and not adversely affect the local and regional environment. Increasing efficiencies and technological advancement allow us to capture more resources from a smaller footprint.

Two bills aimed at reforming our energy laws, H.R. 2776, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007, and H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, both recently passed the House of Representatives. However, a number of concerns have arisen with both of these pieces of legislation.

The unfortunate reality is that neither of these bills does anything to help develop our own domestic supply of oil, but rather punishes America’s oil and gas workers by raising taxes, imposing new fees, and putting the brakes on energy exploration, making us even more reliant on foreign oil. Other concerns arose from the amendment offered by Representative Tom Udall of New Mexico. His amendment, which was accepted and included within the final legislation, requires electric suppliers to provide 15 percent of their electricity using renewable energy resources by the year 2020. The intentions of this amendment are good; however, it unfortunately implements a standardized requirement for the entire country without taking into account the specific needs of individual states. While this new mandate may be easily fulfilled by certain areas of the country that have readily available access to renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, and solar, it becomes more difficult and costly to implement these requirements for other parts of the country where such amenities are not easily found. At the same time, I am also concerned that this legislation

respond to:

1424 longworth house office building fj 100 NE monroe O 3050 montvale drive D 209 west state
washington, DC 20515 peoria, IL 61602 springfield, IL 62704 jacksonville, IL 62650

(202)225-6201 (309)671-7027 (217)793-0808 PHONE/TTY (217) 245-1431

FAX (202) 225-9249 FAX (309) 671-7309 FAX (217) 793-9724 FAX (217) 243-6852

INTERNET: WWW.HOUSE.GOV/LAHOOD/

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Mr. Doug NicodemusNovember 14, 2007

Page # 2

excludes nuclear energy from being defined as renewable. This would make it increasingly difficult for states such as Illinois to meet these new energy restrictions where nuclear is the dominant form of energy used.

This legislation also failed to address an important issue which I have consistently been concerned with, the promotion of fuel efficient vehicles. Of the 20 million barrels of oil the U.S. consumes in a day, 67 percent is used to power our cars. If Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were increased by only three miles per gallon, not only would it save you money, but it would steeply reduce the amount of oil consumed each day by our country. We already have the technology to increase CAFE standards, and it is the single most important thing we could do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Consistent with this goal, in the new 11 Oth Congress, I have signed onto legislation, as I have done in the past, which would increase our automobile fuel efficiency standards in the United States, H.R. 656. This legislation, introduced by my colleague from Washington, Representative David Reichert, would prescribe CAFE standards for automobiles manufactured after 2016 of at least 33 miles per gallon. This legislation has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While I am not a member of this committee, I will closely monitor the progress of this legislation, hopeful that it will reach the House Floor for a vote so that I may continue to show my support for it.

As a result of my dedication to decrease America’s dependence on oil, while researching alternative forms of energy, I was happy to vote to support and pass H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, by a vote of 264-163, earlier this Congress. This bill will repeal a number of tax credits given to major oil corporations in the hope that this would generate investment and research in new and renewable energy alternatives. It will also amend certain deepwater oil and gas leases, issued during 1998 and 1999, to incorporate specified price thresholds applicable to royalty suspension provisions. The funds generated from this legislation would then be put into a ‘Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewable Reserve Fund’. The money in this fund would go to researching and developing new and renewable alternatives to petroleum energy in order to wane America’s dependence on foreign oil.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I will continue my dedication to promoting alternative and renewable fuel choices to help lessen our dependence on foreign oil as we continue to work through the 110th Congress. Please feel free to contact me again should you have any further thoughts or concerns.

Sincerely,Ray LaHood Member of Congress

RHL/mjr

More About The Compressed Air Car – I want one of these.

Posted on November 20, 2007 by Doug Nicodemus

I have been trying to track down more about this amazing car. As I understand it, the car is not in production but you can place an order for one by contacting the manufacturer directly. If you live in Europe apparently you can buy the car for $15,000. If you live in the USA, you will have to pay shipping costs which could add $5,000 to the cost. The text below is from Gizmag:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/7000/

March 19, 2007 Many respected engineers have been trying for years to bring a compressed air car to market, believing strongly that compressed air can power a viable “zero pollution” car. Now the first commercial compressed air car is on the verge of production and beginning to attract a lot of attention, and with a recently signed partnership with Tata, India’s largest automotive manufacturer, the prospects of very cost-effective mass production are now a distinct possibility. The MiniC.A.T is a simple, light urban car, with a tubular chassis that is glued not welded and a body of fibreglass. The heart of the electronic and communication system on the car is a computer offering an array of information reports that extends well beyond the speed of the vehicle, and is built to integrate with external systems and almost anything you could dream of, starting with voice recognition, internet connectivity, GSM telephone connectivity, a GPS guidance system, fleet management systems, emergency systems, and of course every form of digital entertainment. The engine is fascinating, as is and the revolutionary electrical system that uses just one cable and so is the vehicle’s wireless control system. Microcontrollers are used in every device in the car, so one tiny radio transmitter sends instructions to the lights, indicators etc

There are no keys – just an access card which can be read by the car from your pocket.

Most importantly, it is incredibly cost-efficient to run – according to the designers, it costs less than one Euro per 100Km (about a tenth that of a petrol car). Its mileage is about double that of the most advanced electric car (200 to 300 km or 10 hours of driving), a factor which makes a perfect choice in cities where the 80% of motorists drive at less than 60Km. The car has a top speed of 68 mph.

Refilling the car will, once the market develops, take place at adapted petrol stations to administer compressed air. In two or three minutes, and at a cost of approximately 1.5 Euros, the car will be ready to go another 200-300 kilometres.

As a viable alternative, the car carries a small compressor which can be connected to the mains (220V or 380V) and refill the tank in 3-4 hours.

Due to the absence of combustion and, consequently, of residues, changing the oil (1 litre of vegetable oil) is necessary only every 50,000 Km.

Compressed Air Cars. I have seen the future and it is very good.

Posted on November 19, 2007 by Doug Nicodemus

How would you like to go 200 miles for $2.00? Thats the claim for this car. If you charged the car with solar whoa, transportation with no pollution. Do not be fooled by its small size because it is made out of carbon composites so it is really tough. You drive in the middle which is cool. There business model is one of small regional assembly plants so it spreads jobs where ever it goes. Whoa you could knowck me over with a feather. How can we get one of those in Springfield, Illinois!

http://www.theaircar.com/

Moteur Developpment International

Welcome to the future!

After fourteen years of research and development, Guy Negre has developed an engine that could become one of the biggest technological advances of this century. Its application to Compressed Air Technology(CAT) vehicles gives them significant economical and environmental advantages. With the incorporation of bi-energy (compressed air + fuel) the CAT Vehicles have increased their driving range to close to 2000 km with zero pollution in cities and considerably reduced pollution outside urban areas.
The application of the MDI engine in other areas, outside the automotive sector, opens a multitude of possibilities in nautical fields, co-generation, auxiliary engines, electric generators groups, etc. Compressed air is a new viable form of power that allows the accumulation and transport of energy. MDI is very close to initiating the production of a series of engines and vehicles. The company is financed by the sale of manufacturing licenses and patents all over the world

Nothing is as Funny as the End of the World – extrapolation?

Posted on November 13, 2007 by Doug Nicodemus

Here is another pretty funny environmental website. It seemslike it grew out of a conference in 1995 in Canada called the “Green of Industry”. Site was last updated unfortunately in 2001 but it still has many witticism anyway.

http://www.rit.edu/~slrbbu/Humor.html

The History of the Universe in 200 Words or Less

Quantum fluctuation. Inflation. Expansion. Strong nuclear interaction. Particle-antiparticle annihilation. Deuterium and helium production. Density perturbations. Recombination. Blackbody radiation. Local contraction. Cluster formation. Reionization? Violent relaxation. Virialization. Biased galaxy formation? Turbulent fragmentation. Contraction. Ionization. Compression. Opaque hydrogen. Massive star formation. Deuterium ignition. Hydrogen fusion. Hydrogen depletion. Core contraction. Envelope expansion. Helium fusion. Carbon, oxygen, and silicon fusion. Iron production. Implosion. Supernova explosion. Metals injection. Star formation. Supernova explosions. Star formation. Condensation. Planetesimal accretion. Planetary differentiation. Crust solidification. Volatile gas expulsion. Water condensation. Water dissociation. Ozone production. Ultraviolet absorption. Photosynthetic unicellular organisms. Oxidation. Mutation. Natural selection and evolution. Respiration. Cell differentiation. Sexual reproduction. Fossilization. Land exploration. Dinosaur extinction. Mammal expansion. Glaciation. Homo sapiens manifestation. Animal domestication. Food surplus production. Civilization! Innovation. Exploration. Religion. Warring nations. Empire creation and destruction. Exploration. Colonization. Taxation without representation. Revolution. Constitution. Election. Expansion. Industrialization. Rebellion. Emancipation Proclamation. Invention. Mass production. Urbanization. Immigration. World conflagration. League of Nations. Suffrage extension. Depression. World conflagration. Fission explosions. United Nations. Space exploration. Assassinations. Lunar excursions. Resignation. Computerization. World Trade Organization. Terrorism. Internet expansion. Reunification. Dissolution. World-Wide Web creation. Composition. Extrapolation?

This piece was the inspiration for the book A Briefer History of Time and led to the Annals of Improbable Research Universal History Translation Project. Reprinted from the AIR, Volume III, Number 1, January/February 1997, page 27.

Interested in learning more about any of these events? Click here for a version of the history with links to Wikipedia pages.

Uranium – a truely useless and dangerous heavy metal

Posted on November 6, 2007 by Doug Nicodemus

As always the rape of the environment goes hand in hand with the rape of the poor.

http://www.newsdesk.org/archives/004450.html

Uranium Wealth Ignites Niger Strife

Africa’s struggle with mineral wealth and regional poverty has a new poster child, as Tuareg nomads in Niger take up arms for a greater share of the booming uranium trade there.

Niger is not only the continent’s leading uranium exporter, it is also one of the most impoverished — a situation exacerbated by progressively severe drought.

According to ISN Security Watch in Switzerland, a nascent rebellion by Tuareg rebels has claimed the lives of 50 soldiers, although the government claims the attacks were by drug smugglers and robbers, and has deployed “thousands” of troops to the region.

The situation is further complicated by the presence of foreign mining companies, which have been the target of rebel attacks — but are also blamed for exacerbating the violence.

In particular, the government blames Areva, a French company, which until recently had a monopoly on the uranium trade there, of exhorting rebels to attack its competitors.

The rebels, meanwhile, say they are victims of racism and political neglect, claim that China has offered military aid to Niger in return for favorable mining contracts, and also blame Areva for helping fund government oppression through uranium sales.

Libya, at the country’s northern border, has also been blamed for backing the rebels as it seeks greater access to the radioactive mineral.

The conflict is taking its toll on civil society in Niger.

According to the Media Foundation of West Africa, a government regulatory agency has suspended operations at several radio stations and newspapers since the Tuareg conflict began.

John Francis is one of the heppest cats ever.

Posted on November 5, 2007 by Doug Nicodemus

>This man is amazing and if there is a heaven…he has a place.
>
>

Ped Dispenser

John Francis, a 'planetwalker'

who lived car-free and silent for

17 years, chats with Grist

By Mark Hertsgaard

10 May 2005

Read more about: green living

Bookmark: del.icio.us | google | yahoo

How long could you survive without your car? For the many Americans

who think nothing of driving 10 blocks to buy a gallon of milk, the answer

is obvious. But before any of you dedicated pedestrians and die-hard

cyclists start feeling smug, try this question: How long could you survive

without talking?

John Francis.

Photo: Courtesy of Planetwalk.

Chances are, nowhere near as long as John Francis did. After a massive oil

spill polluted San Francisco Bay in 1971, Francis gave up all motorized

transportation. For 22 years, he walked everywhere he went -- including

treks across the entire United States and much of South America --

hoping to inspire others to drop out of the petroleum economy.

Soon after he stopped riding in cars, Francis, the son of working-class,

African-American parents in Philadelphia, also stopped speaking. For

17 years, he communicated only through improvised sign language,

notes, and his ever-present banjo. The environmental pilgrim says

he took his vow of silence as a gift to his community "because, man,

I just argued all the time." But it may have been Francis who benefited

most of all. For the first time, he found he was able to truly listen to

other people and the larger world around him, transforming his approach

to both personal communication and environmental activism.

Francis started speaking again on Earth Day 1990. The very next day,

he was struck by a car. He refused to ride in the ambulance, insisting

on walking to the hospital instead. With a Ph.D. in land resources

(earned during his silence), he was later recruited by the U.S. Coast

Guard to write oil-spill regulations and by the United Nations Environment

Program to serve as a goodwill ambassador.

Francis, the author of Planetwalker: How to Change Your World One Step at a Time,

is now preparing for a second environmental walk across America. He

spoke with writer Mark Hertsgaard about how social change happens,

the decency he encountered among red-state Americans, and the

importance of bridging the chasm between white and black environmentalists.

African American (BLACK) Environmentalist – This guy is amazing! And not as unusual as most White folks would think.

Posted on November 5, 2007 by Doug Nicodemus

One of the most amazing sugestions that a group of activists (of which he is one) have advocated for is “green” job training programs for disadvantaged youth and high-school drop outs. They would be trained to retrofit buildings to be off the carbon economy. Jobs that can not be exported abroad. As is my custom this is a total lift from this 2005 blog.

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/05/10/hertsgaard-francis/

Q? Why did you stop riding in motorized vehicles?

A. This was the first time I had ever been exposed to an environmental insult of such magnitude — 400,000 gallons of oil spilling into San Francisco Bay. And I couldn’t get away from it. You could close your eyes, you could turn around, but you just couldn’t get away from the impact of it. The smell was overpowering. I decided I wanted to do something, but I didn’t know exactly what. I mentioned to a friend that I wanted to stop riding in cars, and she laughed at me and I laughed at myself and that was the end of it.

It wasn’t until a neighbor died the next year that I … He had a good job as a deputy sheriff, he had a wonderful wife, lovely kids, he just had everything. And from one day to the next, he was gone. So I realized there weren’t any promises. If I was going to do anything, I had better do it now. Because now is the only time we have to do what we need to do.

Q? But one could have that feeling and say, “OK, I’m going to join the Sierra Club. I’m going to write my senator. I’m going to carry a picket sign outside the oil companies.” Not many people would say, “I’m going to stop riding in motorized vehicles.” Did it strike you as extreme?

A. It did. But it struck me as the most appropriate thing I could do. I could join the Sierra Club, I could carry picket signs, and people have been doing those things. But in my life, what could I do? And that was: not ride in cars. And I thought everyone would follow. (Laughter.)

Q? You write about this in your book, that you had an inflated sense of yourself at that time. Not long after, you took a very radical step to confront that.

A. As I walked along the road, people would stop and talk about what I was doing and I would argue with them. And I realized that, you know, maybe I didn’t want to do that. So, on my [27th] birthday, I decided I was going to give my community some silence because, man, I just argued all the time. I decided for one day, let’s not speak and see what happens.

Q? I’m going to read a passage from your book about your decision to stop speaking: “Most of my adult life I have not been listening fully. I only listened long enough to determine whether the speaker’s ideas matched my own. If they didn’t, I would stop listening, and my mind would race ahead to compose an argument against what I believed the speaker’s idea or position to be.”

A. That was one of the tearful lessons for me. Because when I realized that I hadn’t been listening, it was as if I had locked away half of my life. I just hadn’t been living half of my life. Silence is not just not talking. It’s a void. It’s a place where all things come from. All voices, all creation comes out of this silence. So when you’re standing on the edge of silence, you hear things you’ve never heard before, and you hear things in ways you’ve never heard them before. And what I would disagree with one time, I might now agree with in another way, with another understanding.

Q? Some people reading this interview might say, “That sounds awfully passive if all you do is listen when ExxonMobil says there’s no global warming or when the Bush administration says we can have healthy forests by cutting them down.” Is there a danger that the philosophy you’re expounding is too passive in the face of environmental destruction?

A. There’s always a danger for anything to become not appropriate. But at the same time that I was listening, I was also walking. I was making a statement for other people to see, and perhaps to inspire them. The most you can do is be who you are and do what you do. You’re the only person you really have a moral obligation to change. What everyone else does, you don’t have any control over that.

Q? You began walking in the 1970s here in Northern California. Your first long walk was to Sacramento, the state capitol, to testify before a Senate committee. Then you took a longer walk up the coast to the Pacific Northwest. Eventually you walked across the entire country. You were an African-American man, with a banjo and a backpack, and you were silent. Did people treat you as an oddity?

A. Well, you know, I did look different.

John Francis in 1984.

Photo: Courtesy of Planetwalk.

Even for the 1970s!

A. Even for the 1970s. (Laughter.) I realized early on that I was gonna have to not worry about how I looked. It was really good for me to let my image go, the image I had before — that I had to wear the right clothes, drive the right car, use the right cologne. All those things went out the door, and I allowed myself to be a clown.

Q? Nowadays, many of us think about America as split between red states and blue states. Was that your experience while walking across the country?

A. Well, I walked across a lot of red states, and the people in those states were just as generous, or even more so, as the people in blue states. In fact, when I walked across the country, there were no red states, there were no blue states; it was just America. People you might think would not bring me into their home brought me into their home and put me down at the table with their family, with their children, and invited me to stay.

Q? In your book you argue that the environmental crisis is really a crisis of the human spirit. Does that mean we have to wait for humans to become better people before we can solve the environmental problem?

A. I’m not sure I would say that humans are going to become better people, but I think humans are going to become who we are. Frankly, I look at my life and I go, “God, I have great hope for everybody!” Because I look at where I came from, and I could never have seen me walking across the country, silently going to school, and 20 years later I’m in Washington, D.C., writing federal oil-pollution regulations. Looking at my journey, which is part of all of our journeys, I have great hope.

Q? As an environmentalist who is black, do you think the chasm between white environmentalists and non-whites will ever be bridged?

A. It has to be. How we relate to one another is essential to environmentalism. If you’re not talking about human rights, economic equity, mutual respect, you’re not really dealing with the environment. Trees are wonderful. Birds and flowers are wonderful. They’re all part of the environment. But we’re part of the environment too and how we treat each other is fundamental.

Q? The day after you began to speak again, you were hit by a car on the streets of Washington, D.C. I can imagine some people saying, “The universe was sending a message there.”

A. I was thinking, “The universe is sending a message.” I’m lying there, and the ambulance comes and they’re strapping me down and I said, “Where are we going?” And the ambulance person says, “We’re taking you to the hospital, you’ve been hit by a car.” And I said, “You know, I think I can walk.” They stop and look at me and say, “Walk? You can’t walk. You’ve been in an accident.” And I said, “Well, I don’t ride in automobiles. I haven’t ridden in an automobile for 17 years. In fact, I didn’t speak for 17 years. I just started speaking yesterday.” And that’s when I see ’em start thinking, “We’re taking him to St. Elizabeth’s [psychiatric hospital] for observation.”

Finally one of the women said, “Why are you afraid of riding in cars? Is it a religious thing?” And I said, “No, it’s not religious.” “Is it a spiritual practice or something?” I said, “No.” She says, “Well, it’s principles, huh?” And I grab onto that: “Principles! Yes, it’s principles!” And she tells me, “Honey, if you can suspend your principles for five minutes, we can drive your butt to the hospital.” And I think about it and all I come up with is, “I don’t think principles work that way. You can’t just suspend them for five minutes.” Eventually, they let me walk.

Q? In 1994, after 22 years, you decided to ride in vehicles again. Why?

A. Walking had become a prison for me. While it was appropriate to stop walking when I did, over the years it had calcified, because I never revisited my decision not to ride in cars. [One day,] as I was walking, I thought about the fact that I had worked at the Coast Guard, I had worked on the Exxon oil spill. And if they had said to me, “John, we could hire you, but you have to ride in a car and fly a plane,” I would have said, “I’m sorry, I guess I can’t work for you then.” And that would have been the wrong answer. So I decided I needed to break out of the prison.

Q? You were on the Venezuela/Brazil border when you stopped walking. How did it feel?

A. There were two women from the Netherlands who were walking with me. And when I got into the bus [on the border], they looked at me like, “Oh God, something’s going to happen to him. He’s gonna start crying or whatever.” But I didn’t. I just got in and I realized that I was in a VW now and I could feel the industry of transportation. I could feel the cogs of transportation. You know, the asphalt road, the gears turning, the fire, the pistons banging, and the fuel exploding — I could feel all that. It was a very interesting moment for me.

Q? No guilt?

A. No guilt at all. This was the decision I was going to make.

Q? You’re about to start another long walk, and obviously you’re a little older now and you have a family. You’ve talked a little bit about how you hope walking will affect the world around you. How about the world inside you? How will this time be different?

A. I don’t know how I’m going to change. I don’t know how it will change me. That’s part of the mystery of walking, is that the destination is inside us and we really don’t know when we arrive until we arrive. One of the biggest epiphanies that I’ve had was that, you know, environmentalists like to look at the industrialists or at the developers and say, “They gotta change. If they would change, everything would be all right.” But really, we all have to do that. We all need to look at ourselves. We need to re-imagine ourselves.