Supply & Demand?

By Moe Fakih

I remember listening to talk radio in June while filling up my Honda Accord Coupe with 89 Octane at $4.68 per gallon. The oil companies were claiming that refineries have been unable to keep up with demand and that finding new sources and extracting those sources was a costly endeavor - thus $4.78 per gallon in a gas station located in Orange County, California.

People were swearing as they entered fueling stations and they were swearing more upon leaving. It may be interesting to research the statistics on road rage violence during the period where gas was over $4 per gallon.

Today, the United States is on the verge of a major economic meltdown as layoffs are gaining momentum and as the auto industry is eagerly awaiting a loan from the government so they may keep their plants open and keep more American jobs online. If the automakers go under, this will send a shock wave through the economy.

So have the oil companies finally decided to "be nice" and lower prices to help out Joe and Jane American? How can an industry complaining months ago that petrol chemical price hikes were justified since the cost of doing business was high?

It is obvious that market manipulation has been taking place and continues to take place. Today gas is around $1.85 per gallon at the same pump I used in June - that's a difference of $2.83. Has a meteorite full of crude oil landed in some remote desert? How are the oil companies determining this price point? Perhaps the answer wrests with the circle of powerful business interests and bankers that run the show.

I'm not complaining about the price reduction, I'm just asking for a logical explanation based on market dynamics that explains these price fluctuations? Does Anyone know?

Low Carb Diet

By Moe Fakih

In 2006 the California State Assembly passed Assembly Bill 32 - The California
Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32).  AB 32 requires the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) to develop regulations and market mechanisms that
will ultimately reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by
2020. Mandatory caps will begin in 2012 for significant sources and ratchet down
to meet the 2020 goals.  State law vests CARB with direct authority to regulate
pollution from motor vehicles, fuels, and consumer products.  

This means that city and county governments must create policies that measure
or quantify greenhouse gas emissions and take action to reduce those emissions.  
Some of these actions may involve creating green building programs, offering ride
sharing programs to reduce vehicle trips, or provide hybrid vehicle only parking
spaces throughout the region. 

In September 2008 The State of California passed Senate Bill 375 (SB 375),
which uses incentives and requirements to encourage local municipalities and
developers to concentrate growth within urban cores or close to public
transportation hubs in an effort to reduce Californians' use of cars, thus reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.  SB 375 makes findings that, based on Item 1 of the
Bill, “Require significant changes in land use and transportation policy in order to
meet the greenhouse gas reduction goals established by AB 32.”  

As a result local governments will be redirecting growth into urban areas which
means taller buildings with access to public transit will become en vogue.  These
same governments need to quantify how greenhouse gas emissions are reduced
either by counting vehicle trips, by calculating the amount of energy saved as a
result of energy efficient buildings, or by other means; however, cities and private
agencies are awaiting more direction from CARB as to how exactly they may reduce
these carbon footprints.  CARB has until December 31, 2009 to report to local
agencies about how to start quantifying and reducing carbon outputs.

So it seems the launch of the green revolution is being mandated by the state to
compel local governmental implementation greenhouse gas reductions.  A few cities
such as the City of Irvine and the City of Santa Monica have begun to aggressively
pursue these measures, and they may serve as test models for other cities to follow. 

Even though they may be able to reduce vehicle trips, local municipalities cannot
control what kind of vehicles people drive or vehicle technologies.  If California or
the nation wants to implement a successful green house gas reduction campaign,
it will also have to address the impact of the automobile directly. The United States
ranks last with regards to fuel economy measures with an average of 25 miles per
gallon per vehicle.  Australia and  Canada average 34 miles per gallon, Japan is at
43 miles per gallon and Europe’s fuel efficiency average is 46 miles per gallon.  

AB 32 and SB 375 will require municipalities to reduce green house gas emissions
by providing a denser mix of land uses with direct access to jobs like in the City of
Los Angeles, create improved mixed use neighborhoods like in Pasadena and
provide access to public transit like the Cities along the southern California
Metro-link transit route. However, if people are unable to link their homes to mass
transit and to jobs, they will continue to drive the most inefficient automobiles in the world. 

Perhaps similar legislation can be passed to compel the auto companies to provide
additional fuel efficient vehicle choices to help reduce green house gas emissions.  
For now it seems most of the pollution reduction pressure is being placed on cities,
counties, transportation engineers, city planners, architects and developers.  Oil
companies and the auto industry will be engaged in business as usual unless the
consumer can compel them to help change direction.  It is only practical to include
all segments of society in tackling the issue of using air as a sewer system especially
the industries that are the grossest violators.

A New Energy Economy

The New Agenda: A New Energy Economy and 5 Million Green Jobs

US Green Building Council

With more than 500 energy and climate advisors, President-Elect Barack Obama campaigned on an aggressive and detailed plan to strengthen the economy, spur green job creation, and protect the environment.

Harnessing the amazing momentum and progress of the green building community, USGBC is now working to promote sound policies in the next administration that will stimulate a green economy, create millions of green jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, advance greener, more energy-efficient buildings, and spur green infrastructure. The following policy proposals, advanced by the President-Elect during the campaign, offer particular promise for advancing green building:

• Green Building: President-Elect Obama has proposed the expansion of federal grants to assist states and localities in building more efficient public buildings through the use of LEED. In addition, under President-Elect Obama's plan, all new federal buildings would have to be carbon-neutral by 2025. This plan also would commit all new federal buildings to a 40% improvement in efficiency within five years and would seek a 25% improvement in the efficiency of existing federal buildings within the same period.


• Building Efficiency Goals and Incentives: President-Elect Obama has proposed a goal of carbon-neutrality for all new buildings by 2030. This will be achieved by establishing a goal of 50% greater building efficiency for new buildings and 25% greater efficiency for existing buildings over the next decade. Under the plan, the federal government would award grant funds to states and localities that implement new, energy efficient building codes, and would provide matching grants to states that promote building retrofitting through public benefits funds.


• Green Jobs and Job Training: President-Elect Obama has proposed an investment of $150 billion over 10 years to spur the development of renewable and other technologies, promote energy efficiency, and advance new fuel and smart electricity infrastructure. This plan would direct funding to the manufacturing sector for job training and transition programs, and would create an estimated 5 million new green jobs. Additional training programs, including a Green Jobs Corps for disadvantaged youth and a Clean Energy Corps, have been proposed to stimulate the development of a highly skilled workforce.


• Transportation and Infrastructure: President-Elect Obama has proposed the consideration of smart growth principles in the transportation funding process, as well as renewed support for public mass transit projects. The President-Elect's proposed plan also includes the creation of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to direct $60 billion over 10 years to infrastructure projects that could create some 2 million new jobs and $35 billion annually in economic activity.

With strong federal support, the green building community will be able to accelerate its spectacular wave of growth and innovation, and help ignite a rebuilt, revived green economy. USGBC looks forward to working with the new administration to support these and other initiatives that create jobs, save money and energy, and promote the creation of sustainable buildings and communities.

A Green Revolution: Creating Green Jobs and Economic Recovery through Green Building

USGBC estimates that 2.5 million new green jobs could directly result from a 100% commitment to energy efficiency in our homes, schools, and offices. Indeed, McKinsey & Company reports that 85% of future incremental electricity needs in 2030 could be met through energy efficiency in buildings, appliances, and industry. For more than a decade, the U.S. Green Building Council's members have been at the forefront of the green building movement. Building by building, neighborhood by neighborhood, we are already witnessing the positive impact of green buildings on the planet, and we are making equally impressive progress in support of the other two "p's" that guide our work -- people and prosperity. Through the deployment of new, green projects, products and technologies, the green building movement is harnessing the entrepreneurial spirit of our country, creating green jobs for the future, and providing opportunities for individuals from all walks of life to enjoy healthier, more environmentally responsible, and prosperous buildings and communities. Informed by our collective experience with more than 2,000 LEED certified facilities and nearly 16,000 LEED registered projects, we must now dedicate ourselves to restoring not only our environment, but also our economy.

New technical expertise and skills will be required to transition from our carbon-intensive economy to the green economy of the future. Large-scale investment in building efficiency and renewable energy, among other areas, can spur the creation of millions of new, green jobs -- reviving domestic industries and communities while advancing our environmental goals.

Building a Green Economy

Building a Green Economy:
Meeting the Needs and Sharing the Opportunities

by Fabian Núñez

California’s emerging green economy continues to grow with astounding momentum and potential. With millions of dollars being invested in that green economy, we need to identify and address its workforce needs.

In 2006, through an unusual partnership between Democratic legislators and a Republican governor, we passed AB 32, otherwise known as The California Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 establishes regulations that will phase in a 25 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions from the state’s largest emitters by 2020.

The California Air Resources Board’s recently-released AB 32 draft scoping plan noted that not only will this effort reduce green house gasses, it will add a much-needed boost to the economy. That backs up information we received during the passage of AB 32, when the Climate Action Team – a group of state agencies coordinated by the California Environmental Protection Agency – found that meeting the 2020 limit on pollution will increase the income of Californians by $4 billion and create 83,000 jobs. Another study by UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group and the Goldman School of Public Policy found that investments in green technologies produce jobs at a higher rate than investments in comparable conventional technologies.

Government is also investing in this green future. To achieve the state’s carbon reduction goals it is estimated we need to replace 20 percent of our gasoline consumption with lower-carbon fuels and increase the state's number of alternative-fuel or hybrid vehicles by more than 7 million. To help push this forward, I wrote AB 118 last year to fund incentives for more alternative fuels and to help make clean-car technologies affordable for more Californians. With these incentives, California drivers will have more opportunities to retire their old gas-burning, carbon dioxide-emitting cars, and companies will step up production of clean technologies and fuels.

With all this investment potential, what are we doing to train the workforce we will need? As the author of AB 32, I know first hand how important the promise of green technologies, investment in green industries and a new energy economy are. For me, elected from inner-city Los Angeles, environmental justice and economic opportunity are powerful motivators. I want the economy for our children to be a clean economy. I want the neighborhoods they live in to be clean neighborhoods. A green economy can be an effective path out of poverty.

I want Californians to have opportunities along the entire green spectrum — from high tech work in the lab, to installing one of our million solar roofs, to weatherizing homes and businesses. The dot-com boom of the mid-1990s almost completely circumvented employment of our most vulnerable and underserved populations. This time, I want to make sure that we have the necessary infrastructure in place to ensure no one is overlooked. The green tech and clean tech movement cannot be merely another bubble; it must be a solid and sustainable cornerstone of our economy.

To that end, two years after AB 32, I have also authored AB 3018. AB 3018 adds a green collar jobs special committee to the state’s Workforce Investment Board. The council will be tasked to develop a comprehensive set of strategies including training programs, partnership opportunities, statewide and regional data and funding sources to build the needed workforce.

Under AB 3018, if signed by the governor, The California Workforce Investment Board (WIB) has until April 2009, to establish a Green Jobs Council. The CWIB may utilize its existing members and also call on other state agencies, higher education representatives, industry representatives as well as philanthropic, nongovernmental, and environmental groups to serve as consultants in the development of this strategic initiative.

Among the concrete steps the Green Jobs Council will take are:

• assist in identifying and linking green collar job opportunities with workforce development training opportunities throughout the state, and encourage regional collaboration in local workforce investment areas (LWIAs) to meet regional economic demands;

• create and develop public, private, philanthropic, and nongovernmental partnerships to build and expand the state’s workforce development programs, network, and infrastructure;

• provide policy guidance for job training programs in the clean and green technology sectors to assist and prepare specific populations, such as at-risk youth, displaced workers, veterans, formerly incarcerated individuals, and others facing barriers to employment;

• develop, collect, interpret and distribute statewide and regional labor market data on California’s new and emerging green industries workforce needs, trends, and job growth;

• identify funding resources and make recommendations on how to expand and leverage these funds;foster regional collaboratives in the green economic sector.

I’m excited about the potential of the Green California Community College Summit. A recent news story referred to California’s community colleges as “the modest workhorses” of California’s higher education system. Now, modesty is a fine trait, but the community college system has nothing to be modest about in the role it plays in changing lives and expanding opportunities for thousands of California students.

I am thrilled that our community colleges will be playing a key role in helping provide a trained and educated workforce to meet the needs of our emerging green economy. The needs and the opportunities are so great it will take each of us doing all we can individually and together. And this time we get to start from a new beginning, where we can build social equity and economic opportunities across the board for workers, professionals and entrepreneurs.

I like to say gold built the California economy – but green will sustain it.

Fabian Núñez is California Assembly Speaker Emeritus

A Plan for Creating Two Million Green Jobs in Two Years

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. holds the potential to generate two million jobs in two years with a $100 billion investment in cleantech, according to new report.

"Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy" describes a green recovery program that could lay the foundation for sustainable economic growth while boosting the country's energy security. The program calls for $100 billion worth of tax credits, government spending and federal loan guarantees to cut unemployment and spur growth in six cleantech and efficiency areas.

"We can be certain that the green recovery program will serve as a strong counter-force against pressures that are currently pushing unemployment up as well as more broadly increasing economic disparities," the report said. "The green infrastructure investments proposed here will also generate significant long-term advances toward creating the clean energy economy we need."

The program targets building retrofits, expansion of mass transit and freight rail, wind and solar power, biofuels and constructing a smart electrical grid.

The package would break down into three investment streams: $50 billion in tax credits to give private businesses and property owners access to building retrofits and renewable energy systems; $46 billion in direct government spending on mass transit expansion, smart electrical grid and public building retrofits; and $4 billion in federal loan guarantees to help finance renewable energy and building retrofits.

Spending the money in these areas would create four times as many jobs as investing an equal amount in the oil industry, and triple the number of jobs paying more than $16 an hour, the report found. It also would lower the unemployment rate from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent and offset the 800,000 jobs lost in the construction sector.

Some jobs would be found in specialized areas, such as installing solar panels, but most would include existing jobs already being performed throughout the U.S. For instance, investment in wind power generation could create jobs for environmental engineers, iron and steel workers, truck drivers and machinists. Growth in second-generation biofuels may drive demand for chemists, agricultural supervisors and blending machine operators.

The report suggests raising the money by auctioning carbon permits in a national greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program.

Researchers from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst prepared the report on behalf of the Center for American Progress.

Tidal Power in France

Coming on the heels of the inauguration of the world’s first commercial scale tidal power turbine, Electricite de France (EDF) has announced that it plans to build a pilot tidal turbine system. The plan calls for 3 to 6 turbines to be built with capacities between 4 and 6 MW by 2011.

The location of the site (off Paimpol in Brittany) was chosen due to the extremely strong currents in the area.

While the recently installed SeaGen tidal power system in Ireland was certainly revolutionary, the French plan is as well. France alone has 80% of the potential in Europe for generating electricity from tidal currents—enough to theoretically create 10 million MWh per year.

This is not France’s first tidal power endeavor; The Rance tidal power plant in Brittany was the world’s first electrical generating system powered by tidal energy. The plant, constructed in 1966, outputs about 68 MW of power per year. However, the Rance plant has had severe environmental consequences due to its placement in a fragile estuary.

Fortunately, the new plan will not have such issues—unlike the polluting barrage system used in older tidal plants, the EDF turbines are free-floating.

And the EDF plan has big implications—if all goes well with the pilot project, France hopes to make tidal power an integral industry in the country.

Electric Car Innovation in Palestine

By Nick Chambers

Published on July 11th, 2008

Posted in Electric Cars (EVs), International issues

The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) has reported on two business partners in Gaza who have converted a 1994 Peugeot 205 into an electric car capable of going 110 miles on a single charge using 34 standard lead-acid car batteries.

After more than a year of being blockaded by the Isreali government, Gazans find themselves facing out-of-sight prices for fuel.

Instead of letting that get the better of them, civil engineers Waseem Khazendar and Fayaz Anan claim to have developed an electric motor that is different than other electric motors and allows for improved efficiency.

The converted Peugeot has 15 horsepower and can travel at a top speed of 60 mph. To most Americans this may seem underpowered, but on the 25 mile long and 7 mile wide Gaza strip this amount of power and speed is more than satisfactory — and in reality, it’s probably more than satisfactory for most Americans too.

The business pair say that they already have a few thousand orders to convert gas cars into electric cars, but due to the blockade they only have enough supplies to convert 30-40 more vehicles.

The conversion purportedly costs a mere $2,500 dollars to accomplish. As reported by the CSM, US experts are baffled as to how the conversion could be done for so little money and that using even the cheapest parts available in the US it would cost 3 times as much to do the conversion here.

Kahzendar and Anan are in the process of trying to patent their invention and hope to work together with Israelis to create a multimillion dollar business.

A quote in the CSM from an Israeli businessman after considering the possibility of working with the Gazans sums it up nicely: “I believe that business creates peace, and any peace project is good for everybody.”

Global Warming: Does it Matter?

By Moe Fakih

If you have lived in Tucson Arizona since the 1960s, you have been witnessing that record low temperatures happen much less than they were from 1910 to 1960. The City of Tucson's population is also growing and with an increasing number of people comes a proliferation of concrete and steal. As more buildings and roads are built a heat island develops. Asphalt and concrete absorb heat at different rates depending on how dark the item. Typically the darker the concrete the more heat it absorbs. Lighter surfaces will reflect heat or absorb less heat than darker objects. So as Cities expand, so does their heat absorbing, paved areas; therefor since most major cities are growing, it is believed that heat islands will also increase. Perhaps this contributes to Earth's average mean temperature increases.

The snow is melting on Mt. Kilimanjaro, Kenya. This is a fact. Another fact is that the rain forest at the base of the mountain is being shredded, thus less moisture is whispped up the mountain, less moist air becomes cooled, and less snow is replenishing white caps. Could the fact that the destruction of the local ecosystem have contributed to glaciers dissapearing on Kilimanjaro and not Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth?

Are we witnessing Global Warming or are there other explanations where areas of the Earth is getting hotter or cooler like in Punta Arenas (at the tip of South America), where they have a GISTEMP station record posted on the wall which shows a long-term cooling trend? The middle of Antarctica is also cooling and large glacier sections are getting thicker.

Those are some arguments against Global Warming.

Is global warming a real threat or are there other factors that may explain why the mean surface temperature of the Earth is getting hotter?

Honestly, who cares?

As we watch pundits, politicians, and arm chair politicos debate over whether global warming is a fear tactic to change behavior or a legitimate scientific concern, we should rise above the muck and consider the other reasons why we should design cities so they do not place added strain on resources and the environment, for example. We should consider what products we procure especially when they could come from a rain forest slaughter mill or which region we need to patrol to protect our petrol-chemical intrests. As my friend comments below, humans need to rethink how their behavior affects the environment.

It's not only about Global Warming. It's about how we perceive ourselves in relation to the Country and to the World. Is our job to take care of the bordered fencing on our plot of land? Is our only concern that Conner, Sally, and Alex make it to soccer and cheer practice on time while mom looks for a second job to pay down last year's Holiday expenses? Or should our concerns expand beyond the mind numbing noise, endless chatter and bleeding mass media headlines that help keep us captivated and distracted?

I'm picturing an Ostrich with its head in the sand right now where its wallet, its way of life, its values and its substance is being compromised. It has been sold that having a head in the sand is American, it's good for the economy, and will help fight terror.

It's so much more than Global Warming.

Rethink U.S. goals
by Omar Masry

It seems like every day, I can open up the Register to a healthy debate over the ramifications of global warming and whether global warming even exists or if it's even the fault of humans. As a city planner, I sometimes wonder if it even matters anymore. The climate is changing in ways we can't simply reverse, no matter our intention, and whether it's due to humans doesn't undo the present. What matters more to me, especially as a veteran of the Iraq war, is how dependent we are on unstable areas for the energy that powers so much of our economy.

It's time to ask: Where is our space race? Where is our generation's challenge? Where is our paradigm shift to rethink American?" Heck, even crotchety oilmen like T. Boone Pickens are saying it's time for change. Surely, that change has to be something more than the next iPhone.

Omar's comment is published in the Orange County Register:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/doctrine-oil-congress-2091254-fairness-newspapers

Renewable Energy Jobs Growing Worldwide: Study

By Jonathan Bardelline

Renewable energy accounts for the employment, directly or indirectly, of 2.3 million people worldwide, with the largest gains made where governments support renewables, according to a Worldwatch Institute study.

"It depends very, very strongly on government policy and investment private companies take," said Michael Renner, Worldwatch researcher and author of the "Jobs in Renewable Energy Expanding" report. "Even in the years up to now, we have clearly seen countries that give consistent, strong support, for example in Europe, in Germany and Spain."

Using available data, the study estimates there are 1 million biomass and biofuel jobs, 624,000 solar thermal jobs, 300,000 wind jobs and 170,000 solar photovoltaic jobs. Figures include jobs directly in the renewables sector and jobs indirectly related, such as suppliers that provide equipment components.

The data is incomplete due to the fact that one can't look at traditional economic statistics to see the number of renewables jobs, Renner said.

Using what's available, the Worldwatch study shows Germany has 259,000 renewables jobs (a figures estimated to grow to 500,000 by 2020), Spain has 89,000 direct and 99,000 indirect jobs, and the United States, due mostly to support from individual states, had 200,000 direct and 246,000 indirect jobs in 2006.

Renner notes that as renewables jobs have expanded, employment in the coal, oil and natural gas industries have shrunk. In the past 20 years, output of coal has grown by one-third while the number of coal jobs was slashed in half.

Long-term outlooks put the number of wind energy jobs by 2030 at 2.1 million and solar jobs by that same year at 6.3 million. More people will be employed not only in manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels, the study says, but in installing, operating and maintaining the equipment, all jobs that will contribute to local employment growth. Kenya, for example, has 10 large solar photovoltaic companies and 1,000-2,000 solar technicians.

Even though governments have supported the growth of renewables, Renner pointed out that at least in one case, government does not need to increase or maintain high subsidies.

"In Germany for example, the level at which alternative energy, solar, wind and so on are being subsidized deceases each year," he said. "The key is it provide the overall framework that allows investors to say, 'This is something that is not going to lose money forever, this really is a good prospect...this can stand on its own feet.'"

Other factors that have helped renewables grow are guaranteeing renewable energy will be available from the grid and setting guaranteed rates for buying renewable energy.

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2008/07/11/renewable-energy-jobs-growing

Blankness: Failure in American Leadership

By Moe Fakih

On an overcast southern California afternoon, I rolled my Honda Accord V6 to the fuel pump at a local Chevron station. I quickly remembered those emails blasts calling for a boycott of Chevron and Exxon/Mobile stations to force fuel prices down. That worked well. A few yards away the employees at the car wash were diligently drying off newly washed vehicles. Out of the nine vehicles being wiped down, six were of the sport utility variety.

While stepping out of my car, I scanned the faces of the customers who were waiting to climb into their rejuvenated vehicles. Who are the ones driving the SUVs, I thought? It was difficult to tell because cheerful expressions upon their faces were missing like George Bush from news headlines. A couple of frowns, one gentleman was sitting with his arms and legs crossed, another was staring off into the distance. One lady was looking down blankly at her cell phone.

I swiped my credit card, verified my zip code and proceeded to fuel up on 89 Octane in the automatic fashion I’m accustomed to. Then I realized that I was filling up at $4.01 per gallon. I pulled out my camera phone to record this historic occasion. For the first time it cost me over $50 to fill up my gas tank. Shaking off sticker shock, I chuckled and shook my head, thinking, I’m glad I’m not rolling in an Escalade.

So how did we get here? A revolution took place after Ronald Regan took office in 1980. At that point Americans had lost confidence in their government. John F Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, the Vietnam War was largely seen as unnecessary and costly in both lives and capital, in 1972 OPEC launched an oil embargo that brought the US economy to its knees, Richard Nixon was impeached for his involvement in the Watergate scandal, and the fall out of the OPEC embargo resulted in double digit interest rates under President Jimmy Carter’s tenure.

A malaise swept across America that enabled Ronald Regan to sweep into the white house on a platform that government was the enemy and change must come from the American people vise-a-vi the private sector. By encouraging business development in the private sector, by propping up large companies, a trickle down effect would take place putting money in people’s pockets. Change was indeed on the way.

One of the first things Mr. Reagan did after entering office was to remove the solar cells installed on the White House roof and gut Carter’s solar program that was seeking to achieve 20% of America’s energy through sun power by the year 2000. Carter’s notion of “conserving” was seen as running counter to Reagan’s “consumer” approach to help stimulate the economy.

"In June or July of 1981, on the bleakest day of my professional life, they descended on the Solar Energy Research Institute, fired about half of our staff and all of our contractors, including two people who went on to win Nobel prizes in other fields, and reduced our $130 million budget by $100 million," recalls Denis Hayes, the founder of Earth Day, who had been hired by Carter to spearhead the solar initiative.[1]

Reagan and Congress stopped pushing new auto efficiency standards, acceding to Detroit's desire to leave them at Carter-era levels. They let the solar tax benefit expire, and the young solar industry went belly-up.

It was time to let the markets work their magic and stop all this government tinkering, Reagan and conservatives said.

But what’s interesting is that as Carter was touting solar energy, he was also deregulating price controls on the oil and gas industry. Regan took the credit for untying the hands of the oil industry to charge “market” prices. However, Carter also pushed a "Windfall Profits Tax" on the belief that decontrol would bring higher prices and, thus, higher profits to oil companies that "really don't deserve them.”[2] Later congress quietly repealed the Windfall Profits Tax.

Now the oil companies are able to dictate price unabated. Congress reduces fuel efficiency requirements for automobiles, and in 2002 small business operators, whether they are farmers, contractors or Realtors received a $25,000 tax deduction if the car they buy weighs over 6,000 pounds or more – a light truck or SUV.

Below is a graph showing fuel efficiency standards since 2002 and into the future. The United States is in last place with regards to fuel efficiency for automobiles.

Figure 1: Actual and Projected Fuel Economy for New Passenger Vehicles by Country, 2002-2018.

American leadership should be placed on the side of a milk carton. Or perhaps a billboard should read, “Have you seen this country?” only to display a map of the United States.

Simply put, the US government since Carter, since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, has been working more so in the best interest of the petrochemical industry and its cousin, the military industrial complex than for the best interest of the American people.

What we are witnessing at the pump today is a culmination of successive administration's (both Republican and Democratic) intention to successfully keep Americans hooked on obsolete technology while espousing free markets, jobs and patriotism.

Jobs surely have been created: in India and China as a matter of fact.

The US market truly is as free as the American Bald Eagle - $4 gas and climbing, an endless war in the Middle East, crumbling housing market, low consumer confidence, mounting household debt, blue states, red states and a deregulated media that is focused more on ratings than on the facts.

How did we get here? Perhaps the blank stares of those people at the car wash may explain it.

---

[1] Koff Stephen, Was Jimmy Carter right?. Energy Bulletin. 1 October 2005. http://www.energybulletin.net/9657.html

[2] Anderson William, Rethinking Carter. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 25 October, 2000. http://mises.org/story/535

Home Brew for the Car, Not the Beer Cup

New York Times
By MICHAEL FITZGERALD

WHAT if you could make fuel for your car in your backyard for less than you pay at the pump? Would you?

The first question has driven Floyd S. Butterfield for more than two decades. Mr. Butterfield, 52, is something of a legend for people who make their own ethanol. In 1982, he won a California Department of Food and Agriculture contest for best design of an ethanol still, albeit one that he could not market profitably at the time.

Now he thinks that he can, thanks to his partnership with the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Thomas J. Quinn. The two have started the E-Fuel Corporation, which soon will announce its home ethanol system, the E-Fuel 100 MicroFueler. It will be about as large as a stackable washer-dryer, sell for $9,995 and ship before year-end.

The net cost to consumers could drop by half after government incentives for alternate fuels, like tax credits, are applied.

The MicroFueler will use sugar as its main fuel source, or feedstock, along with a specially packaged time-release yeast the company has developed. Depending on the cost of sugar, plus water and electricity, the company says it could cost as little as a dollar a gallon to make ethanol. In fact, Mr. Quinn sometimes collects left-over alcohol from bars and restaurants in Los Gatos, Calif., where he lives, and turns it into ethanol; the only cost is for the electricity used in processing.

In general, he says, burning a gallon of ethanol made by his system will produce one-eighth the carbon of the same amount of gasoline.

“It’s going to cause havoc in the market and cause great financial stress in the oil industry,” Mr. Quinn boasts.

He may well turn out to be right. But brewing ethanol in the backyard isn’t as easy as barbecuing hamburgers. Distilling large quantities of ethanol typically has required a lot of equipment, says Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. In addition, he says that quality control and efficiency of home brew usually pale compared with those of commercial refineries. “There’s a lot of hurdles you have to overcome. It’s entirely possible that they’ve done it, but skepticism is a virtue,” Mr. Kammen says.

To be sure, Mr. Quinn, 53, has been involved with successful innovations before. For instance, he patented the motion sensor technology used in Nintendo’s wildly popular Wii gaming system.

More to the point, he was the product marketing manager for Alan F. Shugart’s pioneering hard disk drive when the personal computer was shifting from a hobbyists’ niche to a major industry. “I remember people laughing at us and saying what a stupid idea it was to do that disk drive,” Mr. Quinn says.

Mr. Butterfield thinks that the MicroFueler is as much a game changer as the personal computer. He says that working with Mr. Quinn’s microelectronics experts — E-Fuel now employs 15 people — has led to breakthroughs that have cut the energy requirements of making ethanol in half. One such advance is a membrane distiller, which, Mr. Quinn says, uses extremely fine filters to separate water from alcohol at lower heat and in fewer steps than in conventional ethanol refining. Using sugar as a feedstock means that there is virtually no smell, and its water byproduct will be drinkable.

E-Fuel has bold plans: It intends to operate internationally from the start, with production of the MicroFueler in China and Britain as well as the United States. And Mr. Butterfield is already at work on a version for commercial use, as well as systems that will use feedstocks other than sugar.

Ethanol has long had home brewers, and permits are available through the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. (You must be a property owner and agree to make your ethanol outdoors.) But there are plenty of reasons to question whether personal fueling systems will become the fuel industry’s version of the personal computer.

For starters, sugar-based ethanol doesn’t look much cheaper than gas. It takes 10 to 14 pounds of sugar to make a gallon of ethanol, and raw sugar sells in the United States for about 20 cents a pound, says Michael E. Salassi, a professor in the department of agricultural economics at Louisiana State University. But Mr. Quinn says that as of January this year, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, he can buy inedible sugar from Mexico for as little as 2.5 cents a pound, which puts the math in his favor. While this type of sugar has not been sold to consumers, E-Fuel says it is developing a distribution network for it.

In addition, it’s illegal in the United States to operate a car on 100 percent ethanol, with exceptions for off-road vehicles like Indy cars and farm equipment. Mr. Quinn has a federal permit to make his own fuel, and believes that if MicroFuelers start popping up like swimming pools, regulators will adapt by certifying pure ethanol for cars.

Despite all the hurdles, Mr. Quinn and Mr. Butterfield may be on to something. There are plenty of consumers who want to reduce their carbon footprint and are willing to make an upfront investment to do it — consider the success of the Prius.

And if oil prices continue to rise, the economics of buying a MicroFueler will become only better and better.