we can produce all our liquid fuel needs using algae farms and even better more efficient artifical green leave nanotechnology. we would have to develop innovative ways to disperse the removed ocean saline in environmental sound ways. by doing this, we would increase jobs/water/power/fuel, with resultant improvement of us trade balances, increase in tax revenues, strengthing of us dollar and lower global atmospheric co2. we could include into the system devices that trap atmospheric co2 to improve the efficiencies of the system. we could input vast us resources of wind power into this system. who knows, if we can build the system big enough, we could refill depleted underground water reservoirs with excess produced desalinated water and refill depleted oil wells with excess produced oil. once we perfect these upscale models of the system, we export the technology in global areas that have water shortages, like the middle east, africa, asia and australia (some parts of australia). this would lower chances for regional conflicts in these areas.
i think of the sahara desert which stradles the equator. due to desertation the sahara desert is now bigger than the continential us. the only thing the sun power is doing there is baking rock and sand. the potiential of this energy resource is almost unlimited. yet millions of people that live in this region struggle to survive. we can and should do better than this.
the only way to heal the planet is to direct the sun’s power to heal it. after all, all the power we have on this planet comes directly or indirectly from sun power. we just need to plug into it.

for example, my daughter who lives in fairbanks, alaska is age 31 and owns a modest home. there is a window covering which would greatly improve her home’s ability to retain heat at night during periods of deep cold. her house would leak less heat and use less fuel if she had these window coverings, which are a honeycomb blind which rides in a track. the product was accepted as valid for the 2009-2010 rebate. for less than $1000, she could begin the savings. for $2000 she could probably put these on all her windows and they would be more efficient from the moment of installation forward. if there were an incentive, i would be more likely to help her improve her home’s energy usage by cutting loose $2000 from my savings for the product, which would go into circulation, give some work to someone, and make her home better. it’s a win-win. money that is now passively resting could go back to work and we would begin addressing the energy losses from buildings which sorely need energy efficiency.

call it the parent and neighbor energy conservation tax credit!

church congregations could pool potential donors to create greater combined funds to make some serious changes to needy buildings, something like “habitat for humanity” does for new buildings.

if the donors could make a check-off on their tax forms, pools of money could be created for improving homes of perfect strangers. deserving applicants could be matched up with their money.

yes, the program would need quality control. but think of all the improvements that were implemented with the 2009-2010 rebate program, improvements which will help the environment, the u.s, and the climate going forward. this program would continue to promote energy savings, move the improvements to homes which sorely need them, and continue to stimulate the businesses related to construction and home improvement.

why can’t i be able to buy my own windmill? why can’t i afford solar panels (even with the tax break)? why can’t i heat water, and charge my electric car with solar power? i don’t need exxon or archer daniels or solar energy, inc. to put solar panels on my roof, i can call a local company, install all of this 50+ year-old technology, and begin saving energy in a week. my tax subsidy has to assure a return of capital within 5 years. that would still cost less the current subsidies to the industrial complex.

and oh, by the way, since most of this work has to be done on site, it will have to employ us labor. these jobs cannot be shipped overseas they way big corporations now do it.

for example, here are my personal favorites for this new initiative: anna quindlen can be hired to begin by explaining how the policies are designed to help families and improve the climate, thomas freidman can be hired to go next and explain how the policies are designed to spur business innovation, create jobs, improve our competitiveness, and reduce our dependence on non-sustainable energy sources, and james fallows can be hired to explain how the policies are designed to benefit our balance of trade and strengthen our relations with the citizens in other nations throughout each region of the world.

each of these three gifted observers of national and international affairs should be given a budget to bring their own visual aids, as needed, with the help of other creative people from such players as disney and lucasfilms.

the white house should also acquire a youtube channel and/or co-op air time from c-span as platforms for broadcasting these weekly press conferences. they should be accessible to every person in the world who has a computer, a smart phone, or a cable tv connection. the press conferences can be in a location where existing domestic and foreign news channels can cover them and send correspondents to ask questions or not. the general public, on the other hand, should be given the same opportunity to submit questions for possible use on-air prior to each press conference or as follow-ups online.

i really believe that the planet can no longer afford to have the american white house communicate its efforts in behalf of energy, climate, and sustainability filtered through this country’s often bizarre, fragmented, and ultimately self-promoting mainstream television, radio, and print news media. i also believe that the white house cannot afford to have one person, the president, responsible for delivering all the details of the white house’s policies in these complex areas each week. the planet is already depending on the american president to oversee the conduct of two wars, build consensus on hundreds of issues with 535 members of congress and his cabinet, broker a long overdue mid-east peace agreement, and respond to any other domestic or foreign crises that requires american presidential leadership each day.

will the american people reach their potential in the 21st century in the areas of energy, climate, and sustainability, or be left behind? can the world afford the latter consequence? extraordinary times require this young democracy to set an extraordinary example. isn’t it time for the generally accepted leader of the free world to decisively and creatively lead the planet into a bolder era of energy, climate, and sustainability thinking?

now to tougher things, we know that paper, plastic and cans can be recycled, but there’s a lot more out there that can be recycled too. what are they? where can you recycle them? well here’s a quick guide providing useful tips and information on recycling:

1) besides plastic, paper, and metals, there are many other things that can be recycled. not sure if your old paint is recyclabe? check it out. recycle now has a handy guide that lets you determine what is recyclable.

2) so you know, the motor oil you have sitting in your garage is recyclable, but where can you bring it? earth 911 has this handy search that allows you to find local recycling centers.

3) so you’ve dropped off paper, plastic, cardboard boxes, and old electronics at your local recycling center. now, what actually happens to these things?

4) with technology changing so fast, what should you do with those old unwanted electronics? the epa has launched an ecycling program providing resources to consumers and industry to create a responsible means of dealing with unwanted and outdated electronics.

5) lastly, there are definitely cool arts and crafts projects you can do with recyclable materials like bottles, cds, cans and cartons. you can even make art out of old light bulbs!

using these tips everyday can be america recycles day!

michal moore, senior fellow, school of public policy at the university of calgary and sarah m. jordaan at harvard university in the department of earth and planetary sciences, look at the basic question of whether these energy sources are ethical.

in addition to arguing that the greenhouse gas benefits of biofuel are overstated by many policymakers, the authors argue that there are four questions that need to be considered before encouraging and supporting the production of more biofuel. these questions are:

1. what is the effect of biofuel production on food costs, especially for poor populations?
2. should more land be used for biofuel when the return of energy per acre is low? are there better uses for that land?
3. in addition to worrying about the impact of global warming, should we not consider the impact on land of massively expanding biofuel production?
4. what are the other economic impacts of large scale production of biofuel?

“policymakers, especially in the us, have been in a rush to expand biofuel protection,” says michal moore. “but they need to start thinking outside of the box of climate change and the corn lobby.”

“if policy is designed to create better outcomes for everyone, then we need to subject policy to ethical tests. in many respects, current policy around biofuels fails those tests.”

the paper can be found at www.policyschool.ca then click on “latest papers”.