This isn’t to say, however, that we should be using nuclear power here on Earth. We get more energy from the sun in one second than we use in an entire year. We have wind and geothermal and wave energy that is still going untapped. But even those shouldn’t be used exclusively, because there are conditions where nuclear power and even fossil fuels can do things they can’t.

I think that all sources of electricity should be treated equally. A per-megawatt subsidy to companies and individuals producing power should be implemented, and the electrical grid upgraded to allow the generation methods to compete fairly. There is a societal benefit for putting a kilowatt of electricity into the grid that should be encouraged, and this encouragement should be extended equally.

Also, there are certain things that should be discouraged. Emissions from coal and natural gas power plants are bad. Nuclear waste needs to be disposed of, and nuclear proliferation should be limited as much as possible. Bird strikes should be avoided, and waste created from solar panel manufacture should be disposed of properly. These things should be given a cost and periodically audited. If you can create an economic cost for these things, people will try to avoid them, and the price paid to be “allowed” to emit CO₂ or create nuclear waste would be put toward mitigating the effects of these externalities.

This would allow individual regions to produce electricity in the most efficient ways. In some places nuclear might be the most cost effective, once the total cost of construction, disposal, and security are taken into account. In a lot of places, it won’t be. The Midwest, with its small population, strong winds, and large amounts of land, would be perfectly suited to wind power. New York and Maryland would have tidal power. Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico would use solar power.

What we should not do is provide special loans and incentives for companies to choose nuclear power, or any other specific power generation technology. The government should step in to make the true costs of generation match the price as closely as possible, and then let the market determine what power generation method to use.

This is definitely something I think that the EPA should mandate for US cars.

And finally, time-starved women are hungry for a chance to get away from it all – so our dealerships are hosting “ladies night out” events to create a relationship that goes beyond our products. Recently we’ve had dealers host a Bunco party and a Girl Scout Girl Power Clinic; we’ve also hosted many ATHENA events locally with our dealers.

Now, I’ll skip the parts about how the H2 and STS gas guzzlers got awards for their interiors. And I’ll skip the part about how the real thing women need are adustable pedals and seats that pull forward so you can placate junior whilst in traffic. But this, honestly, is rediculous. They say that women need a chance to get away from it all, so they give them another thing to cram into their schedules; one more thing to get into their car and drive to.

Let’s explore the real reason women are time-starved. The average daily commute in the US is 51 minutes. So women are losing almost one hour a day just getting to and from work. Now combine this with schlepping Brent or Ashley to soccer practice or piano lessons and picking them up when you’re done and they’re spending literally hours in their cars every day. And they wonder where all their time goes and why they’re too tired to cook when they get home. (Not that men shouldn’t have to cook. Men should know how to cook and clean just like women should know how to hang curtains and fix broken drywall, but that’s another topic.)

Now, imagine a world where your commute was a 20 minute walk or bike ride, stopping occassionally to pick up or drop off your dry cleaning or grab some food for dinner. Imagine a world where the kids don’t need you to get to and from practices, rehearsals, lessons or to see their friends. They carry themselves on their own two feet, and you know and trust your neighbors to keep and eye on them. Imagine a world where you get enough exercise just running errands that you don’t need to make time to drive to the health center and work out. (One of the most rediculous things I can imagine.) No more traffic, no more mechanics ripping you off, no more buying gas every other day.

GM thinks women need better cars. (Can’t blame them, though. They’re in the business of selling cars. If they proposed a different solution, they’d be violating their fiduciary duty.) I say women need what we all need; better communities that are designed around the person, not the automobile, as the basic transportation unit

When all you know is suburbs, every solution begins to look like a suburb.

But, really, how much work does it take to get a car that runs off of something that explodes when vaporized to run off of something else that explodes when it’s vaporized? I can’t imagine it’s as much work as hooking up an specialized gasoline engine to an electric motor and using the motor as a generator and using braking to recover energy and managing power and charging on the fly.

And when people buy these huge SUVs and have nowhere to get ethanol, or the ethanol is made using coal and hence completely greenwashed, they’ll throw up their hands and say “How should we know that there weren’t going to be stations, or that the ethanol would be made with coal? We did the best we could!”

But GM isn’t doing the best they can. They’re banking on the huge profit margins of their body-on-frame SUVs and big-block V8s with minor engine tweaks to run E85. And they’re going to lose. I wouldn’t mind this, except I know that the executives will ride the company into the ground, hurting people who worked their whole lives, who lived right and followed the rules, while the execs go away unharmed. And not only that, but they will also pawn the pensions and health care for these workers off on society, shirking their contractual responsibilities.

But that goes to the heart of the corporate culture of GM: Let others do the work.

First, two things we know already:

• 85% of Americans do not “favor a gas tax”
• 63% of Americans do not “favor a gas tax even if you reduce payroll and income taxes”

Now, three heartening, hopeful things that you don’t know

• 55% of Americans “would support a gas tax if it reduced U.S. dependence on foreign oil”
• 59% of Americans “would support a gas tax if cut down on energy consumption and reduced global warming”
• 71% of Americans would not “support a gas tax if the proceeds were used to fight the war on terror”

As David Roberts at the Gristmill put it:

For chrissake, if we have any politicians left with a pair and the sense God gave a turkey, they would jump on this. Americans crave it. They want to be asked to sacrifice. They want to be involved. They just need an opportunity.

This isn’t saving the environment, it’s saving his ass. As an oil company exec, he knows better than anyone that oil is a limited resource, and prices are just going to go up. He wants to increase efficiency so there’s less economic pressure to develop alternatives to petroleum-based fuels. The last thing this guy wants to see is a massive switch to ethanol, biodiesel and/or hydrogen or electric cars, because it means that there’s no need for his company anymore. If people go out and buy hybrids, they still burn gas, and he’s got a job for a few more years.

These guys have some of the best prices and widest selection of compact flourescent light bulbs and other energy saving stuff, including these odor eliminating CF bulbs. They’re even doing a "Change a bulb, change the world" ad campaign.

Saving energy was never as easy. Or cheap. 

“Organic farming approaches for these crops not only use an average of 30 percent less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce less erosion, maintain soil quality and conserve more biological resources than conventional farming does,” Pimentel added.

Hopefully this study will convince more farmers to switch over to organic, sustainable farming. It’s really the only way we’ll be able to grow food when oil becomes prohibitively expensive. By switching early, they’ll be able to have the systems in place and take advantage of the switchover that we all know is coming.

I’m an “enviro” and I don’t like the SUV. The Mariner is a little bigger than my wife’s Vibe and gets a little better fuel economy. Whoop-de-freakin-doo.

Ford should be taking giant leaps, not teeny little steps. Of course, what do you expect from a junk bond?