Will Blog for Food

The Debate Over Global Warming is Moot

All the things we should do if global warming is indeed a fact caused by human activity, we should do anyway to reduce the human impact on the planet, to protect future generations and for common sense good stewardship of the earth's resources. Doesn't it make more sense to use renewable resources as much as possible rather than non-renewable resources? Doesn't it make sense to recycle rather than creating ever larger garbage dumps? Take oil, for instance. Oil is a finite, for all intents and purposes, non-renewable resource which is not necessary for automobile  transportation given the level of technology already in existence today. All electric plug-in vehicles could provide all our transportation needs. Imagine a house entirely powered by solar panels (possible today). A couple more panels could provide all the electricity needed to fill up your plug-in electric car's battery.

In Germany the government is incentivizing citizens to add solar panels to their homes, even to create solar panel farms to put electricity out on the grid. What a wonderful idea - the decentralization of electricity production! The goal is for each home to provide its own electricity and more!

This is from Germany Embraces the Sun by Reiner Gaertner:

FREIBURG, Germany -- Germany is not necessarily known as the sunniest spot in Europe. But nowhere else do so many people climb on their roofs to install solar panels. Since the introduction of the Renewable Energies Laws (EEG) in April last year, Germany has been experiencing a remarkable boom in solar energy. "When my cab driver gives me a lecture about solar technologies, I know I am back home," raved Rian van Staden, executive director of the International Solar Energy Society (ISES) about Freiburg, the sunniest city in Germany and host to the InterSolar conference July 6-8. The little university town in southwest Germany, about 40 miles away from the French and Swiss borders, is Germany's "Solar Valley." A gigantic solar panel at the train station greets visitors to Freiburg. The city also boasts the new Zero Emissions Hotel Victoria, which is the first European hotel to run completely on alternative energy sources. Even Freiburg's premier league soccer stadium is solar powered. More than 450 environmentally oriented companies and institutions take advantage of the favorable weather, research, networking opportunities and progressive political climate in Freiburg, which makes even Berkeley -- its soul mate in the San Francisco Bay Area -- look comparatively conservative. The German solar industry has exploded in the last two years. DFS (Deutscher Fachverband Solarenergie), the German Association for Solar Energies, recently reported a 50 percent rise in solar panel orders during 2000. German solar companies sold 75,000 solar systems in 2000 in addition to 360,000 solar systems installed previously, and photovoltaic installations increased fourfold from 1999. Solar power means big business in Germany: Solar companies generated revenues of $435 million in 2000. According to DFS, Germany -- with its 54 percent market share -- is by far the European leader in produced solar collectors.

So there is a lot of possible economic activity around alternative energy production that doesn't involve further depletion of non-renewable resources irrespective of whether ot not they contribute to global warming. This is simply good stewardship of the planet. Or should we just use every drop of available oil and then switch to some other form of energy? A good reason not to do so is that petroleum products have other uses besides energy production such as chemical products, including pharmaceuticals, solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics. 16% of all petroleum production is converted into these other materials. So petroleum production will not shrivel up and go away entirely.

Recycling also is an idea whose time has come. Again it is just a common sense form of good planetary stewardship. Waste products that can be recycled reduce the need to produce original products from scratch and the energy needs required to do so. Besides many of these products if dumped in landfills or rivers are poisonous to the environment. The only reason we would not be recycling or using renewable energy resources is that vested interests including the big oil companies have too much at stake financially. Conversion to another form of energy production would decrease their profits. So their attitude is "let the environment be damned. And we'll take our government subsidies, thank you very much, in addition to our record profits!"

Industries that produce raw materials do not want you to recycle. That's less money for them. They want consumers to buy and consume the products they produce according to the wasteful model they presently use. That's how their interests are vested. Wise energy and recycling policies would have to be set by the government. Who else is there to do it? That's why vested industries spend so much money lobbying the government to get them not only not to change their policies to what makes sense for good stewardship of the planet, but to get them to set policies even more favorble to the vested industries using the slogan "no  government interference in the economy" or laissez-faire. This fails to recognize that the government is interfering every day as it accedes to the pressure of lobbyists to support current vested interests.

Pain at the pump is threatening the pocketbooks of all Americans as gas prices continue their rise towards $4.00 a gallon and the dollar plummets in value. We continue to enrich OPEC nations while undermining our own energy independence and security all in the name of the free market. What free market? OPEC is a cartel, and they're eating our lunch while US oil companies, in collusion with OPEC, continue to make record profits. This is the US-Middle East nexus, and the US military is simply used to promote and maintain the stability of this relationship.

So let's not talk about global warming. Let's talk about good stewardship of the planet, and the fact that Mother Nature might not take too kindly to our changing the gaseous composition of the atmosphere!

Tragedy of the Commons

Tragedy of the commons is a phenomenon which is characterized by individuals acting in their own self-interest in a way that results in costs being imposed on someone else or on society in general. For instance, when a company dumps its waste products into a river thus polluting that river, that company is imposing costs on society rather than on itself to clean it up. If it didn't impose that cost on society, its profits would be reduced since it would have to pay to clean up its own waste products. There are many other ways that a company or a group of people or an individual tries to increase its own profits or welfare by imposing costs on another segment of society. Another example is when dog owners let their pets defecate on the sidewalk and then don't clean up after them. Costs are imposed on someone else to clean up, or, when someone steps in it, a cost is imposed on them to have to deal with that. One of the biggest heists in this regard is the imposition of national debt on future generations. Rather than pay for stuff we are consuming now, we are borrowing the money, running up huge debts and leaving the task of paying them off to another group of people, namely, future  generations.

Immigrants to New England in the 17th century formed villages in which they had privately owned homesteads and gardens, but they also set aside community-owned pastures, called commons, where all of the villagers' livestock could graze. Settlers had an incentive to avoid overuse of their private lands, so they would remain productive in the future. However, this self-interested stewardship of private lands did not extend to the commons. As a result, the commons were overgrazed and degenerated to the point that they were no longer able to support the villagers' cattle. This failure of private incentives to provide adequate maintenance of public resources is known to economists as "the tragedy of the commons."

So overusing and not being a good steward of public resources while maximizing private profits is the essence of  the tragedy of the commons. Well now, under the Bush administration, the essence of their approach to government is just that: denigrate and deteriorate public resources while maximizing benefits to private interests, namely corporations and the wealthy. That's what cronyisn is all about. Drain public resources including the Treasury while siphoning resources to the chosen few. Government not "for the people" but for the wealthy. Government not "by the people" but by lobbyists. Government not "of the people" but of the unitary executive. This accords with their philosophy of reducing the public sphere to a minimum while maximizing the private sphere. Denigrating government maximizes private profit.

Bush (and the Republican Presidents in general starting with Reagan) has specialized in this brand of imposing the costs on others while enjoying the benefits themselves. The motto is "we'll enjoy this now while others will pay later." This is a tragedy of the commons. Rather than paying for what we consume, or paying the costs of what we produce, some of the costs are imposed on others thereby increasing either our profits or our benefit or our enjoyment. It all amounts to the same thing.

When a company makes a "mistake" and the mistake redounds to their benefit because it imposes a cost on others, this is a tragedy of the commons. For instance, if I cancel, say, a phone company service and the next month I still get a bill, their mistake in not canceling when I asked to be canceled means that I'm billed when I shouldn't have been. Either I have to pay when I shouldn't have had to pay which increases their profits or I have to get put on hold trying to connect with customer service to try and get the matter rectified. Either way a cost is imposed on me rather than the company or person who made the "mistake." Companies have figured out that mistakes that they or their representatives make which impose costs on their customers are good mistakes, and, I'm sure, that their employees are rewarded for making them. Of course, they wouldn't be rewarded if the mistakes imposed costs on them rather than their customers.

Of course, the largest commons is the atmosphere. We all breathe this resource  and without the oxygen it provides we would  die. And we pour all kinds of waste products into it. Just like we pour waste products into rivers and then drink the water (also necessary to life), we dump tons of pollutants into this commons and then are forced to breathe the results. There isn't a direct cause and effect link between the pollutants in the atmosphere and the increased incidence of asthma and cancer nor is there a direct link between pollutant dumping and increased tornadoes and hurricanes, but intelligent human beings (scientists) have warned us that the link is there. The privatizers tell us not to worry; they're eager to sell us all private oxygen supplies.  We will have to buy our own oxygen supply to carry with us and breathe at all times.  Those who can't afford it will die. Corporations are salivating at the billions of dollars in profits this industry will provide. Already, they are selling us privatized water supplies (bottled water) as public water supplies dwindle in quantity and quality.

Global warming is the ultimate tragedy of the commons. Private corporations and individuals dump their waste into the fragile atmosphere, that not only sustains life by providing oxygen to individual breathers but also determines our weather. Thus it has a two fold function. Changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere is not a good idea but that is exactly what we are doing by dumping carbon dioxide into it. But, although we know how to stop doing this (get a plug in hybrid and fill 'er up with solar panels), there are vested interests interested in selling us oil and oil burning vehicles. Vested interests are only interested in their short term private profits not in the long range interest of the public commons and the common interests of the human race. If they can convert any public commodity into a privatized one that can be bought, sold and commodified, they will. This applies to water and air also.   

So whether it's pollution, fiscal irresponsibility or "mistakes," all these things can be tragedies of the commons if people don't clean up after themselves (so someone else has to do it), if people try to get other people to pay for things that increase their own profits or if individuals or governments try to increase their profits or tax cuts at others' (namely future generations) expense. A good case in point is tax cuts for wealthy individuals now, paid for by borrowing money from the Chinese and Arabs, to be paid for by future taxes on the poor and middle class. Responsible individuals or companies or governments would provide a true accounting by paying all costs associated with their activity or production and then their profit or enjoyment would be legitimate and not brought about by imposing costs on others. This would be good stewardship also known as fiscal responsibility and also caring about the human race in general and not just selfish, private interests.

California Sues Federal Government Over Car Emissions!

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is suing the Federal Government because California wants to implement stricter standards for car emissions than the Environmental Protection Agency wants to allow. What? The EPA says no when a state wants to exceed their standards! It should be the other way around. They should be happy when a state or states wants to do even better than what the Federal Government mandates. But you have to remember that this Federal Governmenrt doesn't want so much to protect the environment as it wants to protect oil companies. Therefore, the more oil consumption the better, the more tailpipe emissions the better and hang the environment. Global warming, schmobal warming! Read it and weep!

California cannot bring in tough emissions laws without EPA approval California is suing the US federal government over its failure to back the state's tough new anti-pollution laws regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Two years ago, California passed legislation requiring car-makers to cut vehicle emissions by 30% by 2016. But for the measure to take effect, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must give its approval. State governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said there was no legal basis for the EPA to stand in California's way. An EPA spokeswoman said the agency planned to make a decision on the legislation by the end of December. If the legal action is successful, 11 other US states have said they will follow California's lead on emissions levels, and five more are considering the move. 'Our future' California needs the EPA to grant a waiver because the state's legislation seeks to implement stricter standards than those imposed under national law. Arnold Schwarzenegger believes the environment is a key issue Speaking at a news conference, Mr Schwarzenegger accused the federal government of "ignoring the will of tens of millions of people" by failing to approve the legislation. He said: "Our future depends on us taking action on global warming right now. "There's no legal basis for Washington to stand in our way." The 16-page lawsuit filed by the state attorney general's office warns that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles are rising more quickly than from any other source. "The longer the delay in reducing these emissions, the more costly and harmful will be the impact on California," it said. US car-makers are fighting California's plans to cut emissions levels in the courts. Industry groups say the proposed standards would raise the cost of vehicles and could force America's embattled car makers into further difficulties. In April, the US Supreme Court ruled that the EPA, which had challenged the California law, was wrong to say that it did not have the power to regulate exhaust gases from new cars and trucks. In a separate move, Mr Schwarzenegger last year signed a bill making California the first US state to impose limits on the state's greenhouse gas emissions, with a target of 25% by 2020.

Read what two Republican governors have to say about standing up to the Bush Administration who never met a greenhouse gas emission they didn't like!

Lead or Step Aside, EPA States Can't Wait on Global Warming By Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jodi Rell Monday, May 21, 2007 It's bad enough that the federal government has yet to take the threat of global warming seriously, but it borders on malfeasance for it to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public's health and welfare. California, Connecticut and 10 other states are poised to enact tailpipe emissions standards -- tougher than existing federal requirements -- that would cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars, light trucks and sport-utility vehicles by 392 million metric tons by the year 2020, the equivalent to taking 74 million of today's cars off the road for an entire year. Since transportation accounts for one-third of America's greenhouse gas emissions, enacting these standards would be a huge step forward in our efforts to clean the environment and would show the rest of the world that our nation is serious about fighting global warming. Yet for the past 16 months, the Environmental Protection Agency has refused to give us permission to do so. Even after the Supreme Court ruled in our favor last month, the federal government continues to stand in our way. Another discouraging sign came just last week, when President Bush issued an executive order to give federal agencies until the end of 2008 to continue studying the threat of greenhouse gas emissions and determine what can be done about them. To us, that again sounds like more of the same inaction and denial, and it is unconscionable. Under the Clean Air Act, California has the right to enact its own air pollution standards, which other states may then follow, as long as the EPA grants California a waiver. The waiver gives California, and other states, formal permission to deviate from federal standards. California has requested more than 40 such waivers over the past 30 years and has been granted full or partial permission for most of them. By continuing to stonewall California's request, the federal government is blocking the will of tens of millions of people in California, Connecticut and other states who want their government to take real action on global warming. The EPA is finally holding the first of two hearings on the waiver request tomorrow, and we welcome the opportunity to call attention to the harmful effects that global warming is having on people and the environment. But we are far from convinced that the agency intends to follow the law and grant us our waiver. If it fails to do so, we have an obligation to take legal action and settle this issue once and for all. The threat is real. Scientists tell us that if nothing is done to stop the warming of Earth's atmosphere, we can expect an increasing number of droughts, greater risk of forest fires, a reduction in our snowpack, an increase in sea levels, more flooding in winter and hotter temperatures in summer. There can be little debate anymore on whether the effects of climate change constitute a looming threat to the public's health and welfare. Republicans and Democrats in statehouses around the country have already spoken loudly that federal inaction on climate change is unacceptable and have acted on their own initiative. Whether it is Northeastern states uniting to reduce greenhouse gases from electric generators or Western states looking to reduce emissions throughout the economy, momentum is building everywhere but in Washington. The federal government should not stand in the way of dealing with the most serious environmental challenge facing the world. While the United States represents just 5 percent of the world's population, it produces 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. With the landmark legislation authored by former assemblywoman Fran Pavley and passed in 2002, California demonstrated that it is serious about cutting down these emissions from cars. Connecticut also has a strong record on greenhouse gas reduction, which includes adoption of California's tough standards for vehicle tailpipe emissions. California, Connecticut and a host of like-minded states are proving that you can protect the environment and the economy simultaneously. It's high time the federal government becomes our partner or gets out of the way. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is governor of California. Jodi Rell, a Republican, is governor of Connecticut.

Greenhouse Gas

Found some interesting facts at The Unlikely Activist blog. Who would have thought that you create more gaseous carbon dioxide by weight than the weight of the gasoline you burn. For instance, every time I fill up my gas tank which holds 30 gallons which weighs about 180 pounds, I have just released 540 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since my last fill-up. One fill-up lasts me about a week so on a yearly basis I, personally, have been responsible for releasing over 28,000 pounds or 14 tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Burning gasoline in the internal combustion engine actually takes oxygen out of the atmosphere and combines it with the carbon in the gasoline. This accounts for the extra weight. Water vapor is also produced as a by-product.

In defense of myself, I use my vehicle mainly for business and use public transportation whenever possible. But it makes one wonder how can the planet sustain this radical transformation in the gaseous composition of the atmosphere? Regardless of global warming, does it make any sense to radically alter the composition of the atmosphere which has stayed relatively constant for many millenia? The main gas in the atmosphere is nitrogen (78% by volume, 75% by mass). Nitrogen is very inert and doesn't react much. As such it is mainly "filler." Oxygen takes up 21% by volume, 23% by mass. Oxygen is highly reactive and is responsible for human energy production, forest fires and rust among other things. If the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere were to be substantially increased, wood would spontaneously combust all over the planet and there would be constant raging forest fires. If it were to be substantially reduced, on the other hand, we might not ever be able to get a fire going and would probably all freeze to death.

That leaves 1% by volume of the atmosphere to be composed of other gasses chiefly argon, an inert gas that takes up .93% by volume. This leaves only about .06% for all the other gasses that compose the atmosphere including the greenhouse gasses carbon dioxide and methane. So what's to worry? Carbon dioxide makes up only .03% of the atmosphere. So what if I personally am reponsible for an additional 28,000 pounds per year? Well, the reason is that carbon dioxide is very important to the earth's radiation balance because it traps radiant energy from the sun and reradiated energy from the earth in certain infrared wavelengths.  By so doing, it delays the departure of energy from the earth system into outer space, and this delay permits the lower atmosphere to maintain a reasonably stable and warm temperature.

The problem is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing about .4% per year due to human activities such as my personal yearly release of 28,000 pounds from my vehicle's tailpipe. Carbon dioxide levels in the earth's atmosphere have about doubled in the last century, going up about 15 percent just in the last 40 years. This has resulted in global average temperatures having risen about 0.5° C in the last century (~1° F). They are predicted to rise another 3° C (~6° F) over the course of the next century. This could produce a number of unpleasant effects such as the polar ice caps melting with an associated raising of sea levels flooding low lying coastal areas, more and more violent storms, tornadoes and hurricanes and more floods and droughts.

There are mitigating factors, however. Higher ocean temperatures can increase the effectiveness of the oceans as a carbon sump. That is the oceans could absorb an increasing amount of carbon thus reducing the amount in the atmosphere. Deforestation can be followed by the increased photosynthesis associated with secondary vegetation which is often hyperactive in its photosynthetic activity. Finally, the earth's atmosphere itself is unstable producing Ice Ages from time to time from which we may only now be recovering. It's not unthinkable that global warming might tend to cancel out the effects of the next ice age. However, I reiterate: messing with the gaseous composition of the atmosphere is probably not prudent and moderating human activity so as to protect this rather fragile resource (only 10,000 km thick) is probably the best way to go.

Please go to see An Inconvenient Truth by Academy Award nominated star Al Gore and Who Killed the Electric Car? for more insights.

The US Can Satisfy All Its Energy Needs Without Buying Any Foreign Oil

The US has a domestic supply of energy in the form of coal equal to all the known oil reserves in the middle east. So why are we depending on oil for our energy? Big corporate interests want us to buy oil not coal. Coal is a lot cheaper than oil. Already, half the electricity generating plants are powered by coal. The technology is emerging for coal fired electricity producing plants to be pollution free, and electric car technology is already here. That means that, in addition to all out household and industrial electricity consumption needs, all our transportation needs can be powered by electricity ultimately produced from coal.

America has more thaan 274 billion tons of coal reserves - a 250 year supply based on current usage levels. That's 29 times the known US reserves of natural gas and 54 times the known US reserves of oil. The use of coal to generate electricity in the US rose by over 188% between 1970 and 2003, and government experts predict that the use of electricity from coal will rise by another 25% by 2020. The US produces more than 1 billion tons of coal each year or about 35% of the world's coal supply - more than any other country. Wyoming is the state that produces the most coal (about 390 million tons in 2004), and Montana has the largest reserves (about 120 billion tons).

Another reason to make coal the US' primary energy source is that it's more affordable than other sources of energy including oil. Energy costs place the highest burden on low and middle income families. In 2005 families earning less than $10K spent 48% of their income on energy costs. Families earning $10K to $30K spent 17% while families earning over $50K spent only 5%. Costs for household energy use have risen much slower than costs for transportation due largely to the fact that over half the electricity produced comes from coal which is relatively cheap compared to oil. While household energy costs due to electricity use increased 12% from 2000 to 2005, energy costs due to fuel oil increased 67%. Similarly, business energy costs will be reduced by a greater usage of electricity produced from coal resulting in increased competitiveness and more jobs.

In the early 70s the Federal Congress passed the first Clean Air Act. Since then pollutants from coal based power plants have been reduced by 35% while electricty produced from coal has been increased 180%. Technological improvements in the generation of electricity from coal will result in the first pollutant free coal based electricity generating plant by 2012. These plants will produce hydrogen as a by-product which can then be used for hydrogen powered vehicles and will completely contain carbon dioxide which is the main greenhouse gas.

FutureGen is an initiative to build the world's first integrated sequestration and hydrogen production research power plant. The $1 billion dollar project is intended to create the world's first zero-emissions fossil fuel plant. When operational, the prototype will be the cleanest fossil fuel fired power plant in the world. The initiative is a response to President Bush's directive to draw upon the best scientific research to address the issue of global climate change. The production of hydrogen will support the President's call to create a hydrogen economy and fuel pollution free vehicles; and the use of coal will help ensure America's energy security by developing technologies that utilize a plentiful domestic resource. Additionally, other countries will be joining the U.S. to participate in the project. The prototype plant will establish the technical and economic feasibility of producing electricity and hydrogen from coal (the lowest cost and most abundant domestic energy resource), while capturing and sequestering the carbon dioxide generated in the process. The initiative will be a government/industry partnership to pursue an innovative 'showcase' project focused on the design, construction and operation of a technically cutting-edge power plant that is intended to eliminate environmental concerns associated with coal utilization. This will be a 'living prototype' with future technology innovations incorporated into the design as needed. The project will employ coal gasification technology integrated with combined cycle electricity generation and the sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions. The project will be supported by the ongoing coal research program, which will also be the principal source of technology for the prototype. The project will require 10 years to complete and will be led by the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc., a non-profit  industrial consortium representing the coal and power industries, with the project results being shared among all participants, and industry as a whole.

The technology to use coal to produce a substitute for natural gas and fuel for jet planes exists today. By 2025 all coal powered electricity generating plants could be converted to ultra -low near zero emissions.

The US path to the future is clear: more dependence on cheaper coal based electricity for household, business and transportation use, less dependence on more expensive and less reliable foreign oil. The question is: will we have the political leadership and collective will to implement a rational future for America or will we continue to be governed by politicians who are only concerned about catering to corporate interests in return for campaign contributions and lobbying jobs.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

A great documentary film, "Who Killed the Electric Car?", is playing now in a very limited number of art theaters. Too bad since this film should be widely viewed. Anyone interested in the high price of gas, the environment and automotive technology should certainly see it. It "pairs well" (as Starbucks would say) with another current great documentary by Al Gore, "An Inconvenient Truth." These films both should be seen by every thinking, caring person.

The history of the electric car goes something like this. First a definition and a distinction.  By electric car we mean a car powered solely by batteries whereas a hybrid is a car powered by gas and batteries. A plug-in hybrid is a car which can be plugged in to recharge the batteries whereas a normal hybrid's batteries only get charged in the process of driving.

The electric car has been around for over a hundred years. In 1859 Thomas Davenport invented the battery powered car. In 1890 Thomas Edison built a battery powered car using nickel-alkaline batteries. In 1903 one third of all cars produced were electric vehicles, one third were steam powered and one third were gas powered. In 1930 Krieger manufactured the first gas-electric hybrid. It was front wheel driven with power steering. A gasoline engine supplemented the battery pack. In the same year the successful introduction of Ford's internal combustion engine powered Model T virtually wiped out the electric car companies.

In 1990 the Los Angeles basin issued 41 stage 1 smog alerts. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted a Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate requiring car manufacturers selling vehicles in the state of California to have 2% of their market share in ZEVs by 1998, 5% by 2001 and 10% by 2003. In 1995 the American Automobile Manufacturing Association circulated a confidential proposal to launch a public relations "grassroots education campaign" to repeal the CARB ZEV program.

In 1996 in response to auto industry pressure, the CARB made the ZEV mandate more flexible. A "Memorandum of Agreement" between CARB and seven of the largest automobile manufacturers stated that the automakers would promote and market ZEVs in sufficient quantities to meet consumer demand. However, advertising expenditures for GM's EV-1 were minimal as the auto manufacturers did everything they could to discredit their own vehicles while advertising gas-powered cars to the hilt. 10% of all new cars and light duty trucks were still required to be ZEVs by 2003.

In 2000 GM's EV-1 was made available for lease at $400 to $500 a month. Meanwhille, GM purchased Hummer, a gas guzzler, showing where its priorities really were. In 2002 GM, ChryslerDaimler and seven San Joaquin Valley dealerships sued CARB over the ZEV mandate. The US Department of Justice in the Bush Administration filed a "friend of the court" brief supporting GM's and Daimler's suit arguing that the ZEV mandate was an attempt to regulate fuel economy standards something only the Federal Government could do. Alan C Lloyd, chairman of CARB, was named Chairman of the California Fuel Cell Partnership, a group devoted to promoting fuel cell technology, a competitor to electric car technology which was being promoted by the auto industry. Accordingly, Lloyd and CARB lost interest in electric cars. President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address called for research in hydrogen fuel cells. The only problem was that hydrogen fuel cell technology was at least 15 years away. EV technology was already proven and in production. At best fuel cell technology would require a large expenditure in infrastructure in terms of filling stations whereas electric cars could be simply plugged in at home at night.

In 2003 Toyota announced that it would stop production on its electric vehicle, the RAV4 EV, citing poor sales. The Toyota was the only EV that could be purchased (for $42,000) in addition to being leased. The CARB  under Alan Lloyd further modified the ZEV mandate to only require auto makers to roll out a mix of gas-electric hybrids, fuel cell and partially zero emission vehicles by 2008. This effectively killed the ZEV mandate. Subsequent to the CARB's revisions, GM announced that it would not renew leases on the EV-1 and would recall all of them dispatching tow trucks to haul them away from customers reluctant to relinquish them. Ford, Honda and Toyota also pulled their fleets of EVs off the roads.

In 2004 EV-1's are discovered and filmed at GM's Arizona proving grounds having been crushed. Documentary maker Huell Howser elicits the admission that not only are the practically new EV-1s being crushed but that they are scheduled to be shredded so that no earthly trace of them will remain. In 2005 EV-1 activists launch a 24 hour vigil at a GM lot in Burbank where a number of EV-1s have been impounded. When enclosed vans showed up to haul them away, the activists blocked the exit and were handcuffed and arrested by local cops.

In 2006 GM and Toyota ended research on hydrogen-powered  fuel cell vehicles. It seems that they were merely a stalking horse to put out there to attract attention away from and to finally kill EVs. Why you may ask would auto manufacturers want to get rid of the EV? Here are some reasons. A large percentage of auto dealer profits come from maintenance and the EV, in contrast to the gas engine, is virtually maintenance free. Also oil companies would go out of business, and there are still a trillion barrels of oil in the ground and $100 trillion in profits yet to be gained by oil companies. So they don't want oil free transportation to become a reality just yet.

Regardless of the machinations of the oil companies and the auto manufacturers who are more interested in their own profits than in a technology which will protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gasses and reduce costs to consumers (hence less profits), there is an independent company, Tesla Motors, which as of 2006 is manufacturing all electric cars which use Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries developed by Stanford Ovshinsky, have a range of 300 miles, can go 0 to 60 in 4 seconds and cost less than a penny a mile to operate. It will be interesting to see how the auto manufacturers and oil companies will respond to this challenge. Will they try to buy them out and kill the electric car again? Will they try to get legislation passed by the oil friendly (Bush, Cheney and Condoleeza Rice are former oil company executives) Federal Government? Will they try to propagandize consumers away from the all electric vehicle. In the near future, however, only rich people will be able to afford a Tesla, the first car named after an electrical engineer, which started production with a sports model. Down the road, if EVs become more affordable, the average person may be able to own one. Don't expect any help from the Bush Administration though in jump starting the switch to EVs. Their interests are tied in with the status quo.

Finally, Ovshinsky and his company Ovonics have developed thin film solar panels which can be used in lieu of shingles as roofing materials. Every new and re-roofed home can have a built-in solar panel covering the whole roof! It is with sadness that we note the recent passage (August 16, 2006) of Stan Ovshinsky's wife, Iris, who was an equal partner in his business developments.

Speaking for the family, Dr. Ovshinsky’s daughter, Dr. Robin Dibner, said, “Iris fought for peace, equality and justice with empathy for everyone. She found great happiness in creating new industries that resulted in high-value jobs. She was full of life and sparkle, bringing joy to all who met her.”

Movie Review: "An Inconvenient Truth"

Make no doubt about it: Al Gore is the star of this film. And he acquits himself very well. Committed to telling the world about global warming since his college days, he continued presenting his itinerant slide show after winning (but not being elected to) the Presidency in 2000. He comes across in this film as a witty, warm, knowledgeable, intelligent human being with a very important message: Global warming is real and we have a very short time to do something about it before something drastic happens to the earth's ecosystem and its inhabitants.

Roger Ebert has given An Inconvenient Truth a Four-star review writing in the Chicago Sun-Times:

“The director, Davis Guggenheim, uses words, images and Gore’s concise litany of facts to build a film that is fascinating and relentless. In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.”

The atmosphere is a very small, very fragile part of the earth. It is important to remember that earth didn't have an atmosphere in the early years of its existence. Only gradually was one formed by plants and animals that breathed carbon dioxide and generated oxygen. Al Gore's presentation of his slide show draws on some very impressive research and includes some amazing graphics displays that are state of the art. They've seemingly done the impossible by making the presentation of these graphics so razzle-dazzle as to not be boring. In fact the amazing accomplishment of this movie is that it presents what is essentially scientific research in a way as to not be boring.

Al, wisely, intersperses some of his own personal story to break up the ponderousness of the factual presentation. We see him going through security at an airport, driving his car to the family ranch, working on his laptop. As he says, "The debate is over." Reputable scientists are nearly unanimous that global warming is happening and human beings are the cause of it. Greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide mainly) are trapping the sun's rays and heating up the atmosphere, which is causing melting of the polar ice caps, more frequent and violent hurricanes and tornadoes and rising sea levels among other anomalies. Torrential rains are becoming more common as are parched and arid areas.

Data from ice cores from the Antarctic takes the research back 650,000 years so we don't have to rely just on data taken since temperatures started to be recorded a hundred or so years ago. By far the biggest danger is the disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves. If these immense chunks of ice were to become unhinged from their moorings and slide into the sea, all seacoast cities and communities would be obliterated affecting a billion people worldwide.

One cannot help wondering what the world would have been like if Al Gore instead of George W Bush had been elected President in 2000. He is such a decent man; one wonders how the Republicans were able to, if not assassinate his character (which they did to Bill Clinton), assassinate his personality instead. But that is their modus operandi! They'll smear an opponent in any way they can. Instead of the reasonableness which the Democrats offer, the Republicans offer the certainty of a true believer and they appeal to true believers everywhere. God is (according to them) on their side so anything that is done to further their cause is justified. Sound familiar? Their cause includes a continued devotion to oil so they pay scientists to cast doubt on the validity of the global warming scenario.

Gore would have implemented measures to ameliorate the effects of global warming and get the US away from dependence on oil. Bush started a war to secure America's oil supply via access to Iraq's second largest proven oil reserves in the world. The world is the loser. Instead of civilization taking a step forward, it has entered a new Dark Ages. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, has been terminated by the Bush Administration and the American people, at least a majority of them, seem to be in favor of it. After all, if they weren't, in a democracy, they wouldn't have voted for George W Bush and filled Congress with Republicans.

Global Warming

There's no doubt that we're entering an era of extreme global warming. The arctic and antarctic ice caps are diminishing as can be clearly seen from satellite photos. The Greenland Ice Sheet – a mass of glacial ice and snow covering 1.9 million sq km – is twice the size of France and Germany put together. The quantity of ice coming off Greenland's glaciers into the Atlantic has almost doubled in the past five years. It could raise the global sea level by 7m if it melted entirely. The arctic ocean is expected to be ice free by the end of the century. Sea levels could rise by 12 meters.

Greenhouse gases are being released into the atmosphere 30 times faster than the rate that produced extreme global warming 55 million years ago. We are already reaping the effects of these changes. The hurricane season is longer, and hurricane intensity and scope have increased dramatically. This is directly attributible to rising ocean temperatures since hurricanes derive their energy directly from the oceans. Hurricane Katrina is just the most recent example of the ferocity that can produce devastation over extremely large areas. As ocean temperatures rise, hurricanes will become more destructive in direct correlation.

Tornadoes are produced when cold air masses and warm air masses collide. They are becoming more destructive as well as warm air masses become warmer. As sea levels rise, lower lying coastal areas will become inundated. This destruction will start gradually and accumulate. Already we are seeing that the destruction in Louisiana will not be fixed before the next hurricane season is here. This pounding will continue year after year and only get worse as global warming proceeds and as more greenhouse gases are dumped ionto the atmosphere.

Consider these facts:

Most of the United States has already warmed, in some areas by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, no state in the lower 48 states experienced below average temperatures in 2002. The last three five-year periods are the three warmest on record.

Many places in North America had their hottest seasons or days on record in the late 1990s.

Since 1980, the earth has experienced 19 of its 20 hottest years on record, with 2005 and 1998 tied for the hottest and 2002 and 2003 coming in second and third.

America's cars and trucks pump 1.4 billion tons of heat-trapping CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Power plants are also big contributors to global warming. The technology exists to reduce the amount of pollutants from cars and trucks. Auto manufacturers, however, are reluctant to incorporate it. Courts have ruled that the US Government is not responsible for carbon dioxide emissions spewed from cars and trucks. George Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty which would have reduced carbon dioxide emissions.