Ann Coulter And Energy Policy – Ann supports just about everything that is wrong with this country’s energy policy

Poor Ann. She has ranted a raved for so long that she, like Sarah Palin, has become a parody of herself. She once said that , “when the democrats talk about new forms of energy they don’t actually create any new form of energys, they talk about old forms of enenrgy like solar power, wind power and barley power”. Did she miss physics in college or what?

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=262

THIS IS NOT A DRILL
by Ann Coulter
July 16, 2008

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or as she is called on the Big Dogs blog, “the worst speaker in the history of Congress,” explained the cause of high oil prices back in 2006: “We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect.”

Yes, that would explain why the price of oral sex, cigars and Hustler magazine skyrocketed during the Clinton years. Also, I note that Speaker Pelosi is a hotelier … and the price of a hotel room in New York is $1,000 a night! I think she might be onto something.

Is that why a barrel of oil costs mere pennies in all those other countries in the world that are not run by “oilmen”? Wait — it doesn’t cost pennies to them? That’s weird.

In response to the 2003 blackout throughout the Northeast U.S. and parts of Canada, Pelosi blamed: “President Bush and Rep. Tom DeLay’s oil-company interests.” The blackout was a failure of humans operating electric power; it had nothing to do with oil. And I’m not even “an oilman.”

But yes — good point: What a disaster having people in government who haven’t spent their entire lives in politics! That explains everything. A government official with relevant experience or knowledge about an issue is obviously a crisis of gargantuan proportions.

This must be why the Democrats are nominating B. Hussein Obama, who finished middle school three days ago and has less experience than a person one might choose at random from the audience of “American Idol.”

Announcing the Democrats’ bold new “plan” on energy last week, Pelosi said breaking into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “is one alternative.” That’s not an energy plan. It’s using what we already have — much like “conservation,” which is also part of the Democrats’ plan.

Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It’s as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: “Just eat a little less every day.” Great! We’ll die a little more slowly. That’s not what we call a “plan.” We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.

:}

She claims to be a comedian. But she declared that an attempt to toss a pie in her face, an age old comedic twist was attempted assault. Soupy Sales where are you? More tomorrow.

:}

Green Wash – The enviromental pollution that keeps giving

George Bush and his deregulationistas turned green into a bad name. From their expansion of organic products from 120 to well over 1,000 to their attempt to promote something mythologically called clean coal, the Bush administration was hell bent on destroying the environment.  Tragically he may be remembered as the man who set aside more ocean square miles as a wild life sanctuary than any other president…but that is another story…

here is a great site for it:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenwashing

SourceWatch needs your financial support to survive and thrive. If you’ve found this information on the people, organizations, and issues shaping the public agenda helpful, please make a tax-deductible donation now.

Greenwashing

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

This is part of the Center for Media & Democracy’s climate change project.

Greenwashing is the unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government, a politician or even a non-government organization to create a pro-environmental image, sell a product or a policy, or to try and rehabilitate their standing with the public and decision makers after being embroiled in controversy.

The U.S.-based watchdog group CorpWatch defines greenwash as “the phenomena of socially and environmentally destructive corporations, attempting to preserve and expand their markets or power by posing as friends of the environment.” This definition was shaped by by the group’s focus on corporate behavior and the rise of corporate green advertising at the time. However, governments, political candidates, trade associations and non-government organizations have also been accused of greenwashing. [1]

The 10th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defined greenwash as “disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. Derivatives greenwashing (n). Origin from green on the pattern of whitewash.” [1]

In 2008 the environmental group Greenpeace launched a website Stop Greenwash to “confront deceptive greenwashing campaigns, engage companies in debate, and give consumers and activists and lawmakers the information and tools they need to … hold corporations accountable for the impacts their core business decisions and investments are having on our planet.” [2]

Contents

[hide]

The allure of greenwashing

:}

Of course Green Peace has to have their say:

http://stopgreenwash.org/

What’s this all about?

Every day, Americans are bombarded with advertising about environmentally friendly goods and services. But how many really are green, and how many are just pretending?

dddot dddot dddot

About Shell Oil they say:

At a time when the fate of this federally protected area is so vulnerable and at risk of being altered forever by oil, Greenpeace felt it necessary to shed light on the ironic fact that Shell has used the place to brand its own image as green and actually caring about the environment.

The oil company ran a full-page print advertisement in National Geographic Magazine and several other publications, which featured a color picture of a diver swimming through deep blue water featuring brightly colored fish and coral. The statement in the middle of the ad says: “What do we really need in today’s energy hungry world? More gardeners.”

More gardeners? If that’s really what we needed, we could just stop drilling for oil all together right? All we need is more gardeners.

But Shell doesn’t really mean that at all.

They know that in today’s energy hungry world, oil is the food and the company’s main priority. Even through the thickest green glasses, few are going to dispute that fact.

The rest of the text on the advertisement reads that a Shell employee and marine biologist has been working with the company to protect the area.

But how much could the oil giant really be protecting when the company also actually drills near the vulnerable sanctuary.

The advertisement and words on the page are clearly for show.

Shell does have close ties to the Flower Gardens. In fact, an executive from Shell Canada, Rebecca Nadel serves on the sanctuary’s advisory council. Also on the team for the sanctuary is James Sinclair of the now notorious Minerals Management Service. At first glance, it doesn’t exactly look like those employed to protect the sanctuary are representing the most responsible organizations.

Shell has a cozy bed in sanctuary bureaucracy.

The company however, does donate money to Flower Gardens. The Green Life reports $5,000 of direct funding each year. However, the site also acknowledges that it costs nearly six figures to run one advertisement in National Geographic. For a drop in the bucket, the oil giant rebrands its image as being concerned with the underwater sanctuary.

:}

More tomorrow

:}.

Rex Tillerson Is Polluter Number 4, Exxon Mobile Is A Big Climate Killer – But why did it take so long

Its Jam Band Friday –  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FTbH21bqzs

From the beginning to the End,  drilling, refining, selling and using petroleum products was, is and will be bad for the planet. So then the real question is why is he number 4 on the list? Well hmmm I don’t know but then why are some who come after.. after? The world is just full of planet destroyers. It looks bad ma, it looks bad.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH4VqCclils )

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633532/as_the_world_burns/

Meet the 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming in Tim Dickinson’s “The Climate Killers.”

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUxherZN25E )

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/4

 

The Climate Killers

Meet the 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming

TIM DICKINSONPosted Jan 06, 2010 8:00 AM

Burning Man
Rex Tillerson
CEO, ExxonMobil

Tillerson, who oversees the world’s biggest oil company, concedes that “greenhouse-gas emissions are one of the factors affecting climate change.” But that doesn’t mean that America’s largest carbon polluter plans to stop killing the climate. Exxon is responsible for 397 million tons of CO2 emissions annually — more than twice those of the nation’s dirtiest electric utility — accounting for 6.5 percent of America’s climate-warming pollution. As part of its campaign to defeat climate legislation, which Tillerson claims will “cap economic growth,” Exxon spent $29 million on lobbying in 2008 — second only to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And despite vowing to stop its funding of climate denial, it continues to foot the bill for bogus research by right-wing outfits like the Heritage Foundation, which asserts that “growing scientific evidence casts doubt on whether global warming constitutes such a threat.”

In a disingenuous attempt to appear serious about the threat of climate change, Tillerson has recently begun to advocate a tax on carbon pollution — a measure he knows has absolutely no chance of passing.

:}

Please read both articles they are really really really important.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFyIaslIsiM&feature=related )

:}

Jeremy Rifkin Writes A Book For Every Crisis – He usually gets some things right

:}

Community Energy Systems is a nonprofit 501c3 organization chartered in Illinois in Sangamon County. As such we are dependent on public donations for our continued existence. We also use Adsense as a fundraiser. Please click on the ads that you see on this page, on our main page and on our Bulletin Board (Refrigerator Magnets) and you will be raising money for CES. We say a heartfelt THANK YOU to all who do.

:}

For instance his stand against genetically altered food only makes sense in the context of the chemical and seed companies attempts to patent biology or biological sources. All our food is genetically altered. It has been for thousands of years. Frankly I prefer the genetic altering we can see, so to speak as opposed to the genetic altering that went on before which was mainly guessing.

http://tnjn.com/2009/nov/18/the-dawn-of-the-third-industri/

TNJN

TNJN Twitter
TNJN Facebook Fanpage

The news web site of the School of Journalism and Electronic Media | University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Home | News | Sports | Sci/Tech | Opinion | Arts and Culture

The dawn of the Third Industrial Revolution

published: November 18 2009 10:13 AM updated:: November 21 2009 05:59 PM

“The most hated man in science” said that it may be too late to save civilization.

Civilization is on the cusp of the Third Industrial Revolution and “our Second Industrial Revolution is on life support,” according to Jeremy Rifkin, president and founder of the Foundation on Economic Trends said.

We are in emergency mode.  Our dependence on non-renewable resources for energy is breaking the economic system we rely on, he said.

The National Journal named Rifkin as one of the most influential people in shaping federal policy.  He has written 17 books on the impact scientific and technological changes have on the environment, the economy and society.

Rifkin co-authored an article in the European Energy Review December 2008 issue, which says that we are facing a triple threat when it comes to the structure of our economy.  “The global credit crisis, the global energy crisis, and the global climate change crisis are interwoven and feed off of each other.”

“We need a new economic vision,” Rifkin said.  New energy, coming from renewable resources, combined with advancement in communication technology is needed for an effective energy revolution to take place.  Rethinking distribution of energy is the solution to the energy crisis, according to Rifkin.

Making a smooth transition from the Second Industrial Revolution into the Third depends on the construction of four pillars, Rifkin said.  The first pillar is creating dependable forms of renewable energy.  The second pillar is turning buildings into miniature power plants, which can be done by installing solar panels on rooftops.  The third pillar is hydrogen storage.  “Hydrogen is the universal medium that ‘stores’ all forms of renewable energy,” and allows for easy transport.  The fourth, and final pillar is the reconfiguration of the power grid.   By changing the way energy is produced and distributed, businesses and homeowners can create and share energy with each other.

:}

Course then there is the other view.

:}

http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1342

Jeremy Rifkin

Biography

Jeremy Rifkin, the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends (FOET), is the intellectual guru of the neo-Luddites, especially as their anti-technology principles apply to food. He is the author of 16 books, most of them littered with errors and false predictions. A professional scaremonger who has been called “the most hated man in science” by TIME magazine, Rifkin nonetheless has a wide following and genuine influence on public policy debates. National Journal magazine named Rifkin one of the 150 people in the U.S. that have the most influence in shaping federal government policy for his “skillfully manipulated legal and bureaucratic procedures to slow the pace of biotechnology.”

Rifkin’s international campaigns against beef consumption and genetically enhanced crops are motivated by his anti-technology philosophy. Rifkin disparages efficiency, promotes “empathy” with nature, and thinks human beings were better off in less advanced centuries. Always prone to exaggeration, Rifkin wrote in his book Beyond Beef that giving up steaks and burgers “is a revolutionary act” that heralds “a new chapter in the unfolding of human consciousness.”

Background

Founder and president, Foundation on Economic Trends; former advisory board member, EarthSave International; national council member, Farm Animal Reform Movement.

Associated Organizations and Foundations

EarthSave International Organization: EarthSave International
Position: Advisory Board Member
EarthSave began in 1988 as a pet project of John Robbins, one-time heir to the Baskin-Robbins ice cream fortune. His book Diet for a New America had…
find out more »
Logo not available Organization: Farm Animal Reform Movement
Position: National Council Member
Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM) is on the outer fringes of the animal-rights universe. Its membership adheres to a strict vegan diet, and its…
find out more »
Logo not available Organization: Foundation on Economic Trends
Position: Founder
The Foundation on Economic Trends (FOET) is a platform for the neo-Luddite intellectual guru Jeremy Rifkin. Lacking scientific or technical…
find out more »

:}

I got this request today so I will just put it up:

Hi,

Since you have some information about inventing on your site, I wanted to mention http://www.FreePatentsOnline.com and http://www.SumoBrain.com.

They are great, free resources for inventors and intellectual property research.  Far faster and more complete than the US PTO, and they provide patents in PDF format.

If you have a spot on your web site, a link would be great.

Sincerely,
James

:}

Renewable Energy Fails And The Lights Go Out – This guy is so wrong in so many ways it is hard to count

It is jam band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irZi18VR31M

This is a perfect example of an Oil and Gas shill. Actually at this point I guess I should call him a Carbon front man. Ever notice how it’s always a man? He ignores the subsidies paid to the Oil and Gas business right now, which are huge. He ignores the impact of the pollution (externalities you know). He ignores the fact that, as predicted, we are starting to use oil shale and oil sands which are marginal materials because we are running out of resources. Not because of “magical” new technologies.  He ignores the simple fact that if everyone in the world heated their water using geothermal or solar we could cut consumption in half….

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeRa3RtBiIU&feature=related )

In fact he sounds like a buggy maker or a whip maker right after the automobile was first introduced.

http://www.buggymuseum.org/buggytown.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757393,00.htmlhttp://www.tocreateyourdestiny.com/html/where_have_all_the_buggy_maker.html

Unlike those Talk Radio these days, I like to periodically present the other side of a case and oh boy, does this guy do it.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2544

Posted on Nov. 05, 2009

Renewable Banality: The Latest British Export

UK wind energy. Photo by Mitch: Flickr

Photo by Mitch: Flickr

I loved the true story of the Nigerian energy worker who, having received a pay check for $900, amended the figure to read $9,000. As the reporter wittily put it, “The check fraud proved entirely successful … right up to the point where he attempted to cash it.” That’s kind of how I feel about the renewable energy revolution. It will prove entirely successful in the eyes of the public and media — right up to the point where the lights start going out. And those lights will soon start going out, according to a new report.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYxp6OIEZlk&feature=related )

I fully understand the romantic attraction of the clean energy revolution and the rush to replace ‘dirty’ fossil fuels. In the light of the war on carbon it’s a no brainer, right? Which is precisely why, just as diminishing EU and UK subsidies are prompting an industry exodus westward, the British renewables industry may be about to be given an unexpected investment shot in the arm from some of the world’s biggest multinational companies in one of the biggest analogs to the adage “I gave at the church,” in this case the environmentalism church. Companies, it seems, in their rush to appear politically correct are oblivious to how that renewable revolution is ushering in a new dark age in Britain.

Why the multinationals?

Speaking at a UK Confederation of British Industries (CBI) conference in October, the Bank of America’s head of power and utilities, John Lynch, named companies like Google, Microsoft, Wal-Mart and IKEA (the Swedish home goods company) as being potential new investors for Britain’s offshore wind industry. “This is the technology that the UK is leading in, and these companies are looking at ways to get involved,” Lynch told his CBI audience, “because it meets their own corporate social responsibility objectives.” Enthusing over the prospect of a massive new injection of funds for British industry, Lynch noted how the Crown Estate (which owns the UK seabed) had launched the offshore program specifically to enable Britain to meet its target of 80 percent cuts in carbon emissions by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. Clearly nobody had told Lynch that in recent weeks the leaders of Britain’s biggest energy companies privately warned the government that its climate targets, contingent upon renewable sources replacing hydrocarbon fuels, are “illusory” and “delusional.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMdCLL9Q6Ck&feature=related )

as we say in the editing business … or dot dot dot

Put bluntly, Tucker shows that industrial scale renewable energy is, realistically and mathematically, an economic non-starter.

Ironically, just as UK and European subsidy opportunities are dwindling and the revolution faltering, the retail multinationals may be about to reinvigorate the flagging UK program. And as the economic cost of renewables is being counted across Europe, Britain’s energy-climate policy is likely to be touted increasingly as the blueprint for others to follow. A rash of UK studies continue to sound alarm bells over the government’s current energy direction and, one of these, just published, should do the same well beyond UK shores.

Does it really take an Einstein?

In October, the UK energy regulator, Ofgem (The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets), warned that Britain was facing 1970s style power blackouts within just four years – a much shorter timescale than previously thought. Project Discovery cited the British government’s failure to renovate its “crumbling power infrastructure” due to compliance with new EU rules that will force the closure of a quarter of the country’s power stations by 2015. In a typically British understatement, Alistair Buchanan, Ofgem’s chief executive warned, “There could be a potential shortfall in the period 2013-18 … Life might be pretty cold.” Buchanan’s assessment is that only an “involuntary curtailment of demand” – power cuts – can conserve household supplies, unless the government acts urgently to upgrade its nuclear plants. Jeremy Nicholson, of the Energy Intensive Users Group, representing some of Britain’s biggest manufacturers, said that power cuts that hit UK business first would present a “material threat to heavy industry.” Nicholson also warned that once the crisis hit the 60 percent hike in British energy bills currently being acknowledged by the government will, more realistically, hit the 120 percent mark.

Bottom line? If Einstein’s E=mc2 as it applies to renewable energy doesn’t cut the intellectual ice for prospective investors and foreign governments alike, perhaps another will. Try this:

UK energy-climate policy, circa 2009 = a blueprint for black-outs.

See what I mean about a fraudulent check being entirely successful right up to the point

:}

But here is where his analysis shows his paradigm. He says industrial users have to have “so in so” amount of power. I say great. Let the industries that need it generate it in such a way that they generate no pollution. Thank you very much and usins in the residential market, well we will keep our alternative energies. Come on you ARE the smartest guys in the world right? oh..OR maybe not?

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQs4Ra_qEvI&feature=related )
:}

The Population Of Britain Falls To 2 Milllion After Spectacular And Bloody Die Off

That is that there will be a massive die off when the cheap oil runs out. He also believes in euthanasia for the less fortunate.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/environment/2009/11/peak-oil-and-population-control.html

November 04, 2009

Peak oil and population control

Flintoff

Last week I had the miserable experience of interviewing a man who had accidentally survived a suicide pact with his wife.

Dr William Stanton, 79, has bone cancer and is plainly very ill: doctors give him three to eight months. His wife Angela was 74, and in good health, but didn’t want to survive him.

Dr Stanton happens to be one of the foremost proponents of population control in Britain, possibly anywhere, and has written articles and letters for anybody who will publish them, including his local paper and the New Scientist. But the latter stopped publishing him more than 20 years ago because – he believes – his views are regarded as being beyond the pale.

A geologist by profession, Dr Stanton has made a massive study of global population growth since the start of the industrial revolution, and suggests persuasively that the growth can be accounted for precisely by the advent of cheap oil. He contends that global oil production is at peak now, however, and that diminishing supplies will require the population of Britain to fall from around 60m today to just 2m in 2150.

Two million!

This will either happen inadvertently, he argues, as people kill each other for precious resources, or in a controlled way, as laws restrict women to just one child each, humane euthanasia becomes widespread to deal with people who represent a “net drain” on society, and immigration is made illegal – arrivals would be put to work in chain gangs, with other criminals.

In its own terms, Dr Stanton’s analysis makes some sense, but his prescriptions are utterly repellent. But when I said that, he told me I was being sentimental. Was he right?

You can read my Sunday Times interview here. If you wish to find out more about Dr Stanton’s views – and his struggle to get them into the mainstream – you should Google him.

:}

Unfortunately, in the long article of maybe a gazillion words, he mentions Bill Stanton’s beliefs on population in two or three paragraphs focusing most of the rest of the article on Stanton and his wife’s botched double suicide. The irony of his healthy wife dying and he being terminal with cancer and living is over exploited. Also the author spills a lot of ink on Britain’s law against assisted suicide and how 132 Britains went to Switzerland to do the deed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6897964.ece

November 1, 2009

William Stanton: I botched our suicide pact

William Stanton and his wife tried to end their lives together – but they only half succeeded. He says He’d do it again

Terminally ill Dr William Stanton from Westbury-sub-Mendip, Somerset who entered into a suicide pact with his wife Angela which he survived but left the otherwise healthy Mrs Stanton dead

Early one morning in September, William Stanton heard footsteps coming up the stairs of his cottage in Somerset. He knew who it was and panicked. “I shouted out: ‘Go away, Nigel, leave me to it, leave me to it!’”

Nigel, a neighbour and family friend, did not go away. He came into the bedroom and found Stanton in distress and his wife Angela lying dead with a plastic bag over her head.

The Stantons had made a pact to end their lives together and put it into effect just days after the director of public prosecutions revealed how he would apply the law prohibiting assisted suicide. It did not work out as they planned and stands as a terrible cautionary example for anybody thinking that self-inflicted death is easily arranged.

I met Stanton last week in the neat and pretty bedroom where Angela’s body was found. I noted a commode in the corner and a trolley-load of pills beside Stanton, who was sitting up in bed. He is 79 and obviously unwell — his doctors say bone cancer will kill him in three to eight months — but he complained only that the pills make him lethargic.

:}

For a better exposition you might look here:

http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/07/oil-and-people.html

Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, Ireland

ASPO Newsletters, Article Number 573 (July 2005)

The population of the World expanded six-fold in parallel with oil production during the First Half of the Age of Oil. William Stanton, author of The Rapid Growth of Human Population 1750-2000 (Multi-Science Publishing, 2003) contributes the following analysis of how population will have to return to pre-Oil Age levels. Let us hope that it does not come to this, but the options explained do have a certain chilling logic.

Reducing Population in Step with Oil Depletion

by William Stanton

Recent articles in the ASPO Newsletter have agreed that the explosion of world population from about 0.6 billion in 1750 to 6.4 billion today was initiated and sustained by the shift from renewable energy to fossil fuel energy in the Industrial Revolution. There is agreement that the progressive exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves will reverse the process, though there is uncertainty as to what a sustainable global population would be.

In this time of energy abundance, and the complacency it engenders, the vast majority of the general public assumes that what the future holds is “more of the same”. They argue, if pushed, that the expertise inherited by post-fossil-fuel scientists and engineers will allow a smooth transition into a new kind of energy-rich world in which renewable generators will produce as much energy as fossil fuels do now. Such a view is untenable because it ignores the fact that almost all materials essential to modern civilization will be orders of magnitude more costly, and scarce, when they have to be produced using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.

:}

Or more to the point read the original:

http://www.relocalize.net/files/Futures%20proof.pdf

By the By, if he is right there would only be 12 million people left in America. Best estimates for Native American populations the were 21 million..

:}

Energy Independence Does Not Have To Be A Growth Model – Simpler is better

While I am having this meditation on “living off the land”, I have said that this is not a discussion about primitive living. It is not log cabins and horses…though I like both. It is about living with the Earth. It is about making the Earth the first consideration in everything we do. It is recognizing that Burning Things Up is a primitive behavior and one unfitting of 21 century humans. I am not talking about camp fires or barbecues here. I am talking about 500 coal fired power plants. I am talking about 115 nuclear power plants that if we are not careful will be killing things long after we as a species are gone. This also means rejecting all growth oriented economic models, because they rely on overpopulation and over production which, along with our Burning Behavior, are killing the Earth. But here is the growth view of Energy Independence. Kinda frightening don’t you think?

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/

Energy Independence is a civilization changing idea

Oil is a natural source of energy, but it is not the only source of energy. With the help of new technology, America’s energy needs can be obtained from sources other than petroleum. American technology has put a man on the moon, mapped the human genome, and successfully landed robotic exploration vehicles on Mars. It seems reasonable to believe that American scientists and engineers could also develop environmentally safe alternative energy technology that would free America, and the world, from oil dependence.

President Barack Obama
“At a time of such great challenge for America, no single issue is as fundamental to our future as energy. America’s dependence on oil is one of the most serious threats that our nation has faced. It bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation, and funds both sides of our struggle against terrorism. It puts the American people at the mercy of shifting gas prices, stifles innovation and sets back our ability to compete.”
Address given at the White House January 26, 2009

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog_post/Fromperiltoprogress/ Obama at the White House January 26, 2009 –>

Journey to Energy Independence

Following the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the idea of energy independence captured the imagination of the American people. Then during the 1980’s, the accumulative effect of increased automobile fuel efficiency combined with increased global oil production created a surplus of oil on the world market. As a result, the price of oil dropped back below pre-1973 levels and America’s enthusiasm for energy independence faded into memory. Now, more than thirty years after the oil embargo, re-awakened by the terrorist attack on 9/11 and war in the Middle East, the idea of American energy independence has returned with a vengeance, becoming a powerful force shaping the political views of a new generation of Americans.

:}

http://www.energyindependencenow.org/

  Donate Now

EIN MISSION

Energy Independence Now (EIN) is a non-profit organization dedicated to developing innovative, action-oriented solutions to catalyze a rapid transition to a clean, renewable energy and transportation economy in California through policy, advocacy and research.

PHILOSOPHY

EIN believes that the urgency and the massive scale of the climate change, petroleum dependence, and air quality challenges facing California and the world warrant solutions that are immediate, diverse and far reaching. EIN believes that any and all vehicle technologies and alternative fuels that hold the promise of addressing these challenges should be actively pursued. In short, we advocate in support of a “silver buckshot” approach where there is no “silver bullet.” In addition, we believe it is critical to advocate for both the deployment of immediate, near-term solutions as well as longer-term solutions that will help us achieve 2050 climate goals.

:}

I mean they have pictures of children and blue skies and woman scientists but they are still talking go go capitalism.

http://apolloalliance.org/about/mission/

Our Mission

The Apollo Alliance is a coalition of labor, business, environmental, and community leaders working to catalyze a clean energy revolution that will put millions of Americans to work in a new generation of high-quality, green-collar jobs. Inspired by the Apollo space program, we promote investments in energy efficiency, clean power, mass transit, next-generation vehicles, and emerging technology, as well as in education and training. Working together, we will reduce carbon emissions and oil imports, spur domestic job growth, and position America to thrive in the 21st century economy.

Background

Apollo was launched in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy to catalyze a clean energy revolution in America, a revolution in the way our country generates and uses energy so profound that it will touch literally every quarter of American life. Harkening back to President Kennedy’s visionary call to restore America’s technological leadership by landing the first man on the Moon within the decade, the Apollo Alliance spoke directly to the core values we share as Americans: our can-do spirit, our inherent optimism, and the pride we feel (or want to feel) about our country’s place in the world. The subtext was clear: we did it before, we can do it again. This is America, the richest, most technologically advanced and industrious country in the world. If anyone can do it, we can. And we will.

:}

Which leads to this on the other side…see they are both debating growth models of energy:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/03/17/the-myth-of-energy-independence.html

The Myth of Energy Independence

Q&A with Robert Bryce, author of ‘Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence’

By Justin Ewers

Posted March 17, 2008

George W. Bush says he’s for it. So do Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Nancy Pelosi. On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama promise they’ll work toward it. What has inspired all of this bipartisan enthusiasm? Energy independence, the notion that by turning to greener energy sources like ethanol and wind power, we can not only help the environment—and slow global warming—but create millions of new jobs and, most important, wall ourselves off from the murderous petro states of the Middle East.

If it all sounds too good to be true, that may be because it is, argues Robert Bryce in Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence, published this week. Bryce, managing editor of Energy Tribune magazine, lays out the case against the short-term viability of all of today’s renewable energy

darlings: ethanol, wind, and solar power. No matter what the pols say, he insists, for the foreseeable future, oil, coal, and natural gas are here to stay. U.S. News spoke with Bryce about fossil fuels, global warming—and the promises of politicians.

:}

Even the left has to get in on it. But again they are talking growth here:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/seven-myths-energy-independence

The Seven Myths of Energy Independence

Why forging a sustainable energy future is dependent on foreign oil

—By Paul Roberts

 Put another way, the “debate” over energy independence is not only disingenuous, it’s also a major distraction from the much more crucial question—namely, how we’re going to build a secure and sustainable energy system. Because what America should be striving for isn’t energy independence, but energy security—that is, access to energy sources that are reliable and reasonably affordable, that can be deployed quickly and easily, yet are also safe and politically and environmentally sustainable. And let’s not sugarcoat it. Achieving real, lasting energy security is going to be extraordinarily hard, not only because of the scale of the endeavor, but because many of our assumptions about energy—about the speed with which new technologies can be rolled out, for example, or the role of markets—are woefully exaggerated. High oil prices alone won’t cure this ill: We’re burning more oil now than we were when crude sold for $25 a barrel. Nor will Silicon Valley utopian­ism: Thus far, most of the venture capital and innovation is flowing into status quo technologies such as biofuels. And while Americans have a proud history of inventing ourselves out of trouble, today’s energy challenge is fundamentally different. Nearly every major energy innovation of the last century—from our cars to transmission lines—was itself built with cheap energy. By contrast, the next energy system will have to contend with larger populations and be constructed using far fewer resources and more expensive energy.

So it’s hardly surprising that policymakers shy away from energy security and opt instead for the soothing platitudes of energy independence. But here’s the rub: We don’t have a choice. Energy security is nonnegotiable, a precondition for all security, like water or food or defense. Without it, we have no economy, no progress, no future. And to get it, we’ll not only have to abandon the chimera of independence once and for all, but become the very thing that many of us have been taught to dread—unrepentant energy globalists.

:}

Geoengineering – Love it or hate it, here are 2 views

Hate it:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/142784/james_lovelock%3A_schemes_to_%27reverse%27_global_warming_could_lead_to_disaster

James Lovelock: Schemes to ‘Reverse’ Global Warming Could Lead to Disaster

By James Lovelock, The Guardian. Posted September 21, 2009.

Better, perhaps, to let the earth look after itself than try to regulate its system through mirrors, clouds and artificial trees.

The idea of serious scientists and engineers gathering to discuss schemes for controlling the world’s climate would a mere 10 years ago have seemed bizarre, or something from science fiction. But now, well into the 21st century, we are slowly and reluctantly starting to realise that global heating is real. We may have cool, wet summers in the UK, but we are fortunate compared with the Inuit, who see their habitat melting, and Australians and Africans who suffer intensifying heat and drought. We should not be surprised that public policy is edging ever nearer to geoengineering, the therapy our scientists are considering for a fevered planet.

Our senior scientific society, the Royal Society, met at the start of the month to launch the report “Geoengineering the Climate” and to hear from its representative scientists. The meeting was hosted by the president, Lord Rees, and the chairman was Professor John Shepherd, who chaired the study group. The goal, as Prof Shepherd explained in the Guardian in April, was to investigate theories of “intervening directly to engineer the climate system, so as to moderate the rise of temperature” and to “separate the real science from the science fiction”.

Geoengineering is about deliberately changing the air, oceans or land surface of the world to offset global heating with the hope of restoring the cooler world we enjoyed in the last century. We are now fairly sure that the Earth has grown hotter by about one degree Celsius as a consequence of our own action in taking away as farmland the forests and other ecosystems that previously acted to keep the Earth cool. We also have increased by 6% the flow of CO2 into the air by burning coal, oil and natural gas. If we started global heating, can we reverse it by engineering?

:}

Or Love it:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/142687/geo-engineering_could_save_the_planet_%C3%A2€%C2%A6_and_in_the_process_sacrifice_the_world_/

Geo-Engineering Could Save the Planet … and in the Process Sacrifice the World

By Jason Mark, Earth Island Journal. Posted September 24, 2009.

Having unintentionally warmed the planet, we may have little choice but to intentionally cool it back down. But at what cost?

Earth is busted. Like a supercomputer whose elaborate code has developed a few bugs, the core operating systems of the planet are frayed: Ocean populations are collapsing, forests are disappearing, soils have become thin. Perhaps most worrisome, the globe’s atmosphere, the ecosystem on which all other ecosystems depend, is overheating. The machinery of life appears to have malfunctioned.

Since the scale of the climate crisis became clear, the strategy for fixing this glitch has focused on remediation. To maintain the atmosphere’s equilibrium, we need to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. Our chief goal should be to return the climate to something approximating the pre-industrial status quo.

But what if such a return isn’t possible? What if the planet has gone permanently haywire? As the effects of climate change become obvious and global leaders remain unable to halt emissions, a growing number of scientists say we need to begin researching what’s called “geo-engineering” — ways to artificially reduce global temperatures and/or manipulate plants or the oceans to absorb huge amounts of CO2. Having unintentionally warmed the planet, we may have little choice but to intentionally cool it back down.

Even those most interested in geo-engineering say that the idea of deliberately deforming the planet in order to save it from ourselves is, as Stanford University‘s Ken Caldeira told NPR this summer, “scary.” Yet if we shy away from manipulating the whole globe and continue on our present course, we could be left with a burnt Earth unlike anything ever seen. The scientists who are encouraging government-funded research into geo-engineering are driven by a powerful motive: fear. All too aware of the implications of unchecked CO2 emissions — and worried that political systems aren’t moving quickly enough to respond to changes in the planet’s physical systems — these scientists say we may have no other option than to tinker with the sky.

:}

As the atmospheric pressure mounts so will the clamor to DO SOMETHING.

:}

James Howard Kunsler – Say what you like but his writing is pretty good

OK OK so he got Y@K (oh Y2K) wrong, he is an apoplectic apocalypse dude where everything turns out badly, and he is probably anti-arabic. Nonetheles he writes with a cogent powerful logic. I wish that he had a little bit better appreciation for the power of the Sun however.

This just hot off the presses and then more about him:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50173

Energy Bulletin now includes multimedia and other new features

Published Sep 21 2009 by kunstler.com blog, Archived Sep 21 2009

Original Sin

by James Howard Kunstler

In our history, the American nation committed obvious sins against select groups of people, and we’ve paid bitterly for some of that. But now it’s our sins against the land itself that threaten to sink the USA as a viable enterprise.

It’s odd, that in his otherwise excellent blow-by-blow account (“Eight Days,” in the Sept 21 New Yorker Magazine) of the September 2008 Wall Street meltdown that left Lehman dead, and AIG croaking in a ditch, and the banking system in general functionally crippled, reporter James B. Stewart never got around to really describing the cause of it all — namely, the on-the-ground material catastrophe of American suburbia.

It was the worthlessness of the tradable securitized debt associated with all those overpriced (and overvalued) chipboard and vinyl houses, smeared recklessly over the American landscape, that started all the trouble in the first place. And it is our inability to come to grips with that underlying catastrophe that prolongs the resolution of the still-florid banking crisis — since the federal government is doing everything possible to prop up the failed capital equation of terminal suburbia, and to deny the obsolescence of that version of the American Dream and all the mechanisms for delivering it.

The suburban project was not a conspiracy by the likes of Robert Moses, Walt Disney, Frank Lloyd Wright, and President Eisenhower to produce a living arrangement with no future. It was the emergent, self-organizing result of special circumstances in a particular time and place: post World War Two America, with an immense supply of cheap oil, cheap land, and the industrial capacity to churn out all the necessary components for a car-dependent development pattern. Suburbia was spawned out of a couple of persistent themes in American cultural history: 1.) that cities and city life were no good; 2.) and that the romance of settling the wilderness could be reenacted, at great profit, in all that space beyond the towns and cities. It would be silly to deny the appeal of this arrangement at its inception. By the end of WW II, city life in the popular imagination was reduced to one potently awful image: Ralph Kramden’s apartment in “The Honeymooners” TV show.

blog_honeymooners.jpg

There had to be something better than that. Suburbia was engineered as the antidote to the Kramden’s apartment: country-living-for-everybody. The evacuation of the cities to the new outlands proceeded as relentlessly as the landings at Normandy. It wasn’t until the program was well underway that the self-destructive essence of it became obvious — that every new housing subdivision killed the original rural character of the land, with the result that suburban life quickly became a cartoon of country living in a cartoon of a country house in a cartoon of the country. With additional layer-on-layer of, first, the shopping in the form of highway strips, then malls, along with the office “parks,” these places elaborated themselves into a kind of cancer-of-the-landscape, a chronic and expensive condition that Americans had no choice but to live with, because of the monumental investments they had already made in it. The discontents it produced lent it to psychological depression and dark humor, just as chronic illness does. But we were stuck with it.

Meanwhile, all the machinery of culture and politics made it impossible to construct anything differently. The exquisitely fine-tuned planning-and-zoning codes generated by the thousands of town boards mandated a suburban outcome everywhere — with plenty of help from the DOT traffic engineers, the fire marshals, and the even the mandarins of academia who trained all these professionals. As a natural consequence of all this, the disinvestment in cities — especially the older cities of the industrial heartland — continued remorsely until it seemed as if the Second World War had taken place in St. Louis and Cleveland.

This mode of behavior persisted through the first, short-lived oil scarcity tremors of the 1970s. It was so completely embedded in the popular imagination that it had become the baseline American identity. The suburban project caught a second wind in the 1990s, when the last great non-OPEC oil fields of the North Sea, Alaska, and Siberia nullified the grip of the Islamic cartel for while, and sent the price of oil down to $11-a-barrel. Ironically, it was during those years that the warnings of “peak oil” first circulated beyond the geology offices, and it was clear to anyone who reflected on the connections that the project of suburbia was doomed.

:}

He goes on to point out that there is no economy LEFT in the US anymore. Besides food, which has been corporatized there is nothing left in the US to make money with. The manufacturing  jobs were sent overseas.

For more about Kunsler:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Howard_Kunstler

Background

Kunstler was born in New York City to Jewish parents,[1] who divorced when he was eight.[2] His father was a middleman in the diamond trade.[1] Kunstler spent most of his childhood with his mother and stepfather, a publicist for Broadway shows.[1] While spending summers at a boys’ camp in New Hampshire, he became acquainted with the small town ethos that would later permeate many of his works. In 1966 he graduated from New York City’s High School of Music & Art, and then attended the State University of New York at Brockport where he majored in Theater.

After college Kunstler worked as a reporter and feature writer for a number of newspapers, and finally as a staff writer for Rolling Stone. In 1975, he began writing books and lecturing full-time. He lives in Saratoga Springs, New York and was formerly married to the children’s author Jennifer Armstrong.

:}

You can find out more than you ever really cared to at:

http://kunstler.com/blog/

Interestingly here is the part that Energy Bulletins left out…I wonder why?

Clusterfuck Nation
Comment on Current Events by the Author of “The Long Emergency”


In our history, the American nation committed obvious sins against select groups of people, and we’ve paid bitterly for some of that. But now it’s our sins against the land itself that threaten to sink the USA as a viable enterprise.
It’s odd, that in his otherwise excellent blow-by-blow account (“Eight Days,” in the Sept 21 New Yorker Magazine
) of the September 2008 Wall Street meltdown that left Lehman dead, and AIG croaking in a ditch, and the banking system in general functionally crippled, reporter James B. Stewart never got around to really describing the cause of it all — namely, the on-the-ground material catastrophe of American suburbia.
It was the worthlessness of the tradable securitized debt associated with all those overpriced (and overvalued) chipboard and vinyl houses, smeared recklessly over the American landscape, that started all the trouble in the first place. And it is our inability to come to grips with that underlying catastrophe that prolongs the resolution of the still-florid banking crisis — since the federal government is doing everything possible to prop up the failed capital equation of terminal suburbia, and to deny the obsolescence of that version of the American Dream and all the mechanisms for delivering it.
The suburban project was not a conspiracy

:}

Levittown will have killed us..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York

:}

DARPA And The Military Seek Farout Energy Sources – But then farout is what DARPA does best

(fittingly – today is Jam Band Friday and Carlos is up – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ml3NUIDpFg  )

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is a black agency in the sense that much of what it does is shrouded in some secrecy. Its a Think Tank at one level. It is a contractor at another. It is a black site in the sense that it has no budget. But heh, they got a webpage and a Facebook Page too. How Hip and Modern.

http://www.darpa.mil/

http://www.facebook.com/DARPA

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rRlBmJiz5k&feature=related )

 http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/darpa-seeks-to-tap-waters-power-potential/

Danger Room What’s Next in National Security

Darpa Seeks to Tap Water’s Power Potential

 

baltic_sea_wave_cien_water

The quest for limitless energy has preoccupied military researchers for years, and Darpa, the Pentagon’s far-out science arm, has often led the way. Now the agency is looking for yet another method to harness cheap and environmentally friendly energy that would be as simple as turning on the tap.

Well, sort of. Darpa is soliciting proposals for using seawater to create liquid fuel. Their hope is to harvest the abundance of carbon and hydrogen in ocean water, and somehow convert the molecules, via chemical reaction, into usable energy. Since fuel is mostly made up of hydrocarbons, the right interplay between water molecules and the carbon dioxide lurking among them would — in theory — yield fuel compounds.

Sounds good, right? Except Darpa’s not entirely sure what reaction needs to take place, or how to make it happen. That’s the first step for researchers: coming up with an efficient, effective catalyst, and one that won’t be affected by water pollutants, pH levels or the carbon dioxide concentrations of different water samples.

Of course, this isn’t the only out-there energy proposal the military’s got researchers working on. In July, the Air Force started investigating purple bacteria whose pigment could power flying drones. And Darpa’s already throwing money at another water-based energy source: last year, they spent $20 million dollars on converting algae into jet fuel. No word yet on how that worked out.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAf3gqdCrDs&feature=related )

They even have a Wikipedia Page now. You used to have to turn over rocks and stuff to find out anything about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA

DARPA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Formed 1958
Headquarters Arlington, Virginia
Employees 240
Annual budget $3.2 billion
Agency executive Regina Dugan[1], Director
Website
www.darpa.mil

 

 

DARPA headquarters in the Virginia Square neighborhood of Arlington.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is an agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military. DARPA has been responsible for funding the development of many technologies which have had a major effect on the world, including computer networking, as well as NLS, which was both the first hypertext system, and an important precursor to the contemporary ubiquitous graphical user interface.

Its original name was simply Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), but it was renamed DARPA (for Defense) during March 1972, then renamed ARPA again during February 1993, and then renamed DARPA again during March 1996.

DARPA was established during 1958 (as ARPA) in response to the Soviet launching of Sputnik during 1957, with the mission of keeping U.S. military technology more sophisticated than that of the nation’s potential enemies. From DARPA’s own introduction:[2]

DARPA’s original mission, established in 1958, was to prevent technological surprise like the launch of Sputnik, which signaled that the Soviets had beaten the U.S. into space. The mission statement has evolved over time. Today, DARPA’s mission is still to prevent technological surprise to the US, but also to create technological surprise for our enemies.

DARPA is independent from other more conventional military R&D and reports directly to senior Department of Defense management. DARPA has around 240 personnel (about 140 technical) directly managing a $3.2 billion budget. These figures are “on average” since DARPA focuses on short-term (two to four-year) projects run by small, purpose-built teams.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yoGTVzgow8&feature=related )

Here is a little bit of the things they are working on that we know of:

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Technology-Article.asp?ArtNum=59

Here’s a listing of the DARPA-related projects presented on the Technovelgy site:

  • Silent Talk ‘Telepathy’ For Soldiers
    ‘…allow user-to-user communication on the battlefield without the use of vocalized speech through analysis of neural signals.’
  • TASC – DARPA’s Psychohistory
    The agency is seeking whitepapers to fuel the development of a scientific approach to predicting the actions of large masses of people.
  • Guided Bullets By Exacto From DARPA
    How is it possible that a bullet could redirect its own course in mid-flight?
  • DARPA Seeks Self-Repairing Hunter-Killers?
    Tests to date have seen small aerial robots lose large chunks of themselves to hostile fire, yet carry on with their mission.
  • DARPA Gandalf Project And Philip K. Dick
    A new defense department project to locate enemies precisely, and target them, by phone.
  • EATR – DARPA’s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot
    Project to develop a robotic platform able to perform long missions while refueling itself by foraging.
  • You Can’t Hide From DARPA
    Harnessing Infrastructure for Building Reconnaissance (HIBR).
  • Squishy SquishBot ChemBots Desired By DARPA
    ChemBots are soft, flexible robots that are able to alter their shape to squeeze through small openings and then regain their full size.
  • Fracture Putty For Compound Fractures – DARPA
    An alternative to today’s standard treatments, which often lead to further complications, and are not fully load-bearing,
  • Submersible Aircraft – DARPA’s Flying Sub?
    The minimal required airborne tactical radius of the sub-plane is 1000 nautical miles (nm).
  • MAHEM Metal Jets Like Clarke’s Stiletto Beam
    Create compressed magnetic flux generator (CMFG)-driven magneto hydrodynamically formed metal jets and self-forging penetrators (SFP).
  • Precision Urban Hopper Robot Must ‘Stick’ Landings
    Intended to give wheeled robots an additional edge; the ability to jump up onto or over obstacles up to nine meters high.
  • Katana Mono-Wing Rotorcraft Nano Air Vehicle
    The Katana Mono-Wing Rotorcraft is a coin-sized one-bladed helicopter.
  • Micro Imagers For Sensing On Nano Air Vehicles
    With the impetus toward micro-air and -ground vehicles for military applications, there is a compelling need for imaging micro-sensors compatible with these small platforms.
  • RESURRECT High-Fidelity Computer Battlefield Simulations
    Create high-fidelity computer simulations of in-theatre events for tactical, operational and strategic review
  • Aqua Sciences Water From Atmospheric Moisture
    The program focused on creating water from the atmosphere using low-energy systems.
  • Shape-Shifting Bomber In Need Of Plowsharing
    Shape-shifting supersonic bomber fans are feeling bereft this weekend.
  • :}

    for the old school

    ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnamP4-M9ko&feature=related )
    Oh and for another high tech energy firm across the pond try:

    http://www.entity-group.com/About-Us.aspx

    :}