For those concerned about the US economy or national security risks, T. Boone Pickens and data from the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) show us that foreign oil imports should be at the top of our list. We rely very heavily on foreign oil and send a good chunk of our money to other countries to supply us with that oil — $25 billion last month alone!

Take a closer look.

Read more of this story »

With the spotlight shining on clean energy, the stage has been set for the U.S. to rid itself of a harmful addiction to foreign oil. The stars are aligned and the cards have been dealt. Soon we’ll have kicked the dirty habit, right?

Sarah Palin seems to think so. Perhaps you’ll remember her proposal to tap the natural gas supply found under the pristine Alaskan wilderness. As Governor of Alaska she “fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history . . . a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.”

Read more of this story »

The Clean-Tech Investor Summit is over and the participants have gone home, taking with them impressions about the current state of affairs and forecasts for the year ahead.

Arguably the most memorable speech was one by T. Boone Pickens, oil-magnate-turned-clean-energy advocate, on Wednesday. In a speech peppered with anecdotes about politicians and Pickens’ trademark frankness, he called for the audience to press the Obama administration – as well as their state and local lawmakers – to take real steps toward more energy independence.

Read more of this story »

Who Is Joe the Plumber?

If you watched last night’s debate, you heard the question: What will you do in your first term to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Did either candidate actually answer the question? Not really. But here’s why McCain’s answer of offshore-drilling-nuclear-power-wind-solar-geothermal-natural-gas is completely bogus:

1. Offshore drilling won’t do anything for 10 years. And then it still won’t do anything.

Even the Department of Energy says oil from those areas won’t arrive anytime soon. It projected last year that with the ban in place until 2012, new drilling would produce only 7% more oil in 2030, and the impact on oil prices would be “insignificant.”

Despite McCain’s adamant endorsement of offshore drilling as a solution, no new oil would be produced from new wells anytime soon. Even if we started drilling tomorrow, it would have zero effect on gas prices for the next 10 years, and then after that still probably wouldn’t affect them.

The proposal that offshore drilling is somehow a solution to foreign oil dependence is such crap, I’m almost convinced we should start drilling everywhere so we can prove definitively how little difference it’s going to make. Hell, let’s drill in ANWR too while we’re at it and maybe we can drop the price of a barrel of oil a few cents by 2025.

At least then we can prove how stupid even the Department of Energy thinks this entire proposition is:

Drilling in ANWR makes perfect sense, since it would supply 876,000 barrels of oil per day to a country that consumes 20,687,000 barrels of oil per day. To put that in perspective, 876,000 barrels is about 1 hour worth of oil, or over the course of a year amounts to about 15 days of US oil consumption.

Win/Lose?: LOSE

2. Nuclear power will not do anything to solve our dependence on foreign oil.

The first new nuclear power plant would not be finished until well after John McCain’s (God forbid) second term as president. Even if we started building new nukes tomorrow, the only way they could replace the 12,036,000 barrels/day of petroleum we import (NET) would be to turn it into electricity or hydrogen. Even if you think this is a good idea, you’d have to believe in black magic to think this in some way is going to power the millions upon millions of gasoline and diesel-powered trucks already on the road.

Win/Lose?: LOSE

3. Wind, Solar, and Geothermal Power will not do anything in the short term to solve our dependence on foreign oil. Natural Gas won’t either.

I don’t think electricity sources like wind/solar/geothermal not replacing liquid fuels needs no more explanation. I’ve written about natural gas and natural gas vehicles before:

Taking a look at data from the Energy Information Administration, the US uses about 21.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, most of which is produced domestically (18.5 trillion cubic feet) with the difference being imported (4.2 trillion cubic feet). Proved natural gas reserves in the US amount to about 211 trillion cubic feet. If my math is correct, without taking into account any increase in demand, the US only has about 11.5 years of natural gas left. After that, we’re back to square one: importing natural gas from Russia, Qatar, Iran, and Saudi Arabia*

* If you have government/university data that contradicts it, please comment.

Even if natural gas vehicles are a good idea, they still aren’t going to replace all the cars and trucks already on the road.

Win/Lose?: LOSE

To sum this up: McCain’s plan as he stated it in the debates would do absolutely nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil or reduce gas prices at the pump. Sorry Joe.

The alternative: How do we really cut petroleum usage?

The only actual mention of options that have the near-term potential to reduce our dependence on any oil source came from Obama. The two things he mentioned beyond pandering to the drill-baby-drill crowd were a) biodiesel and b) rebuilding our auto industry to start building fuel efficient cars.

Let’s look at each of these:

1. Biodiesel

I’ve written extensively about biodiesel before. Optimistically, biodiesel can in fact replace a small percentage of our total petroleum usage. Unfortunately, how it’s grown and produced is key to how beneficial it is. What really needs to be incented are the advanced feedstock technologies that increase productivity and aren’t made from food crops, like biodiesel made from algae and other alternative feedstocks.

Win/Lose: Depends on how it’s implemented.

2. Fuel efficient cars

Boosting production of fuel efficient cars in a way that would create millions of new jobs and pump money into the US economy is a great idea. While this may not be something that has an immediate effect, it could be accomplished faster than any kind of transition to other fuels.  Obama wants to provide $7,000 tax credits for advanced fuel and efficient vehicles and put 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.

Win/Lose: WIN

What Both Candidates Missed Completely

If you want to pump money into the short term solutions for reducing our consumption of petroleum, there are only a few ways to do it:

Ultimately, We only have 3 options for reducing our dependence on foreign oil:

1. Reduce consumption.
2. Provide a direct replacement.
3. Develop technology that doesn’t need oil.

If we work hard, we might be able to cut 1/3 of our consumption with each.

Obama has already pledged to work towards these, but I don’t understand why he didn’t take the opportunity to seal the deal in these debates: tell the American people that we have already developed the technology to produce a $2 per gallon gasoline-replacement, we can grow it from sources that don’t affect food prices, and the money created goes back into the American economy.

It’s called cellulosic ethanol - WAIT! - the type not made from corn! The type that has about 15 potential technologies to produce it that are almost ready for primetime. The type that has the potential to replace 30% of our total petroleum usage! The type that could actually sequester carbon, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 95%! The type that Obama has already pledged to support:

Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.

2 billion gallons isn’t going to solve our oil addiction, but it’s a hell of a good start, and it’s really the only option for a directly replacing oil that we’ve got. Combined with drastically cutting consumption and rapidly implementing new technologies like plug-in hybrids, it’s our best bet to actually change the game now.

Win/Lose: WIN

>> More on Obama’s Energy Plan: Obama Campaign Seeks to Make Oil Prices Irrelevant

But don’t take it from us:

• Obama’s Energy Policies
• McCain’s Energy Policies

Now if the natural gas and land depletion aren’t enough to get you thinking; the water consumption is heinous. It takes two to four barrels of water to produce one barrel of bitumen (which is what they are really after). The used tailings are then stored, unusable, in tailings lakes, which have potential negative effects on the health of the environment and the population surrounding the contaminated area.

Oil Sands Facts

Climate Change
· Alberta’s greenhouse gas regulation does not require real reductions in emissions from oil sands operations.
· Oil sands production is much more greenhouse gas–intensive than conventional oil production.
· Oil sands are the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
· Continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions show that Canada’s commitment to address climate change falls far short of what’s needed.
· Large-scale carbon capture and storage for oil sands emissions is currently a distant and uncertain prospect.
· Companies are allowed to switch to burning dirtier fuels as a source of energy for oil sands extraction — further increasing greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands.

Water Impacts
· Oil sands mining uses two to four barrels of water for every barrel of bitumen produced.
· Oil sands companies are not required to stop withdrawing water from the Athabasca River, even if flows are so low that fisheries and habitats are at serious risk.
· Capping toxic tailings waste in end pit lakes with water is an unproven and risky concept.
· For over 40 years, oil sands mining companies voluntarily managed tailings on their own, in the absence of concrete government regulations.
· Tailings lakes seep toxic waste. It is uncertain exactly what is seeping, how much is seeping and what ecosystem components are affected.
· Tailings lakes house compounds known to be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms.
· Reclamation of tailings lakes has not yet been demonstrated.

Boreal Forest Impacts
· Alberta’s oil sands underlie one-fifth of the province, and development is already planned for more than 79,000 square kilometers.
· The Athabasca Boreal Forest will not be restored to its native state following mine closure.
· Oil sands mining reclamation standards are weak and lack transparency; only one square kilometer of land has been certified as reclaimed to date.
· The security bonds that are supposed to protect Canadians from costly environmental liabilities may be inadequate.

Perhaps Alaska’s natural gas store will help America achieve oil independence. But it is going to take strong regulations to stop the spread of “the most destructive project on earth.”

Photo Coutesy of Suncor Energy

Map Courtesy of Enbridge Pipelines

In the Chicago Tribune today, Jim Tankersley and Christi Parsons report that each of our front running presidential candidates are promising a future free from dependence on foreign oil. According to this article many energy experts say this is more fantasy than reality. There are many who doubt our ability to become energy independent.

What is energy independence? What does it mean for America? An extreme view of Energy Independence involves complete global market isolation which erupts in negative results on many fronts. Another view involves a combined effort of pursuing domestic oil and alternative energy sources. Creating energy domestically on all fronts, essentially making us stronger participants in the global market.

The cost and effort necessary to become energy independent is much more than either Barak Obama or John McCain are laying out in their energy plans for America. In their article, Jim Tankersley and Christi Parsons, detail each candidates energy plan and candidly point out how each is flawed. As energy buzz words are thrown around by politicians and the media, Americans must stay informed. Defining what energy independence means to them and then not being swayed by the spin cycle.

I applaud you who are searching for truth, thinking and discussing the issues at hand. I applaud you who are making lifestyle changes to create a more sustainable future for your country. As we face uncertain times economically and our security seems weak, I believe the people of America can create change. Pursuing change in your everyday life, will make a difference. Don’t give up!

Related Posts:

Energy Independence is Idiocy, Inanity…Just Plain Senseless, Proclaims John Stossel

BioTown USA: Is Total Energy Self-Sufficiencey Possible?

Republicans Work to Reconcile Their (oil) Platform With McCain’s Climate Change Thingy

Photo Credit: <kian> via Flickr Creative Commons License

Now if the natural gas and land depletion aren’t enough to get you thinking; the water consumption is heinous. It takes two to four barrels of water to produce one barrel of bitumen (which is what they are really after). The used tailings are then stored, unusable, in tailings lakes, which have potential negative effects on the health of the environment and the population surrounding the contaminated area.

Oil Sands Facts

Climate Change
· Alberta’s greenhouse gas regulation does not require real reductions in emissions from oil sands operations.
· Oil sands production is much more greenhouse gas–intensive than conventional oil production.
· Oil sands are the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
· Continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions show that Canada’s commitment to address climate change falls far short of what’s needed.
· Large-scale carbon capture and storage for oil sands emissions is currently a distant and uncertain prospect.
· Companies are allowed to switch to burning dirtier fuels as a source of energy for oil sands extraction — further increasing greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands.

Water Impacts
· Oil sands mining uses two to four barrels of water for every barrel of bitumen produced.
· Oil sands companies are not required to stop withdrawing water from the Athabasca River, even if flows are so low that fisheries and habitats are at serious risk.
· Capping toxic tailings waste in end pit lakes with water is an unproven and risky concept.
· For over 40 years, oil sands mining companies voluntarily managed tailings on their own, in the absence of concrete government regulations.
· Tailings lakes seep toxic waste. It is uncertain exactly what is seeping, how much is seeping and what ecosystem components are affected.
· Tailings lakes house compounds known to be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms.
· Reclamation of tailings lakes has not yet been demonstrated.

Boreal Forest Impacts
· Alberta’s oil sands underlie one-fifth of the province, and development is already planned for more than 79,000 square kilometers.
· The Athabasca Boreal Forest will not be restored to its native state following mine closure.
· Oil sands mining reclamation standards are weak and lack transparency; only one square kilometer of land has been certified as reclaimed to date.
· The security bonds that are supposed to protect Canadians from costly environmental liabilities may be inadequate.

Perhaps Alaska’s natural gas store will help America achieve oil independence. But it is going to take strong regulations to stop the spread of “the most destructive project on earth.”

Photo Coutesy of Suncor Energy

Map Courtesy of Enbridge Pipelines

Oil is destined to be a heated issue in this upcoming presidential election and Barack Obama’s opposition to the gas tax “holiday” has already been a hot topic. Obama has made it clear that national energy policy needs to be taken in a new direction.

“We send a billion dollars to foreign nations every single day and we are melting the polar ice caps in the bargain,” said Obama. “That has to change.”

Read more of this story »

The goal of the International Fiber Collaborative is to provide an opportunity for people who enjoy working with crafts, whether professional artists, hobbyists, or students, to come together from all over the world to express their concerns about their countries’ extreme dependency on oil for energy. Those who participate will crochet, knit, stitch, patch, or collage 3-foot square fiber panels that will express each participants concern about this topic. By designing and creating a panel and participating in this project you are, in the larger picture, expressing your concern about this important subject to the rest of the world. Once all 800 panels are received, they will be sewn together to completely cover an abandoned gas station in central New York State. I recently spoke with Jennifer Marsh about the history behind this project, how to participate (even if you aren’t particularly craft-tastic), the reaction from the creative community, and much more.

Green Options: How did the idea for the International Fiber Collaborative begin?

Jennifer Marsh: I am a third year Master of Fine Art student at Syracuse University; my focus of study is sculpture. The idea for the International Fiber Collaborative has gradually come about over the course of my first two years in graduate school. When I started at graduate school, I mostly stayed locked away in my studio with the door shut, as most artists do. Gradually, I became frustrated at the lack of impact or contributive spirit that my studio practice evolved into. I wanted to have a more active and productive role in the community. I felt passionate towards creating dialog with others from all walks of life. The result in doing so, proved a thousand times more productive and engaging then my previous studio practice.

So I founded and directed a high school initiative for Syracuse City High School art students: workshops that allowed students to visit the Syracuse University Sculpture Facilities and create sand molds for molten aluminum metal to be poured into them. At the end of each workshop, the students were able to take home their own aluminum sculptures. I direct five workshops a year, with summer kids of all ages getting involved. The eye-opening effect that this had on the students proved to be much more successful then I had anticipated. I enjoyed working actively within the art community at SU, but now I wanted to reach out, to experience lives that are vastly different then mine.

This past June, I volunteered as an English teacher in Northern India for five weeks. During my time spent in India, I realized that life was about the relationships we make and the experiences we share with one another, and less about making artwork for myself. Around this time, I had been working on an idea to crochet a cozy for a barn out in the country, with a herd of matching sheep. This is following a project I had recently finished that involved crocheting a cover for my lawnmower. Still the idea for the barn was interesting, because it started involving a community; however, I still felt that the time disconnected from people crocheting the cover with some hired help would be a contradiction to the recent developments in my desired studio practice.

Then on one day I was driving in the town of DeWitt in Syracuse, New York, just leaving a gas station, when I drove right passed an abandoned gas station. Instantly, I thought that if I covered this building, the idea could be directly connected to countries over dependency on oil for energy. Simultaneously, I was cleaning, spinning, and crocheting wool to create sheep cozies, which I am still working on. However, I ditched the barn idea to pursue the gas station project. And this is when I realized that this project could very well be a collaborative involving people of all different ages, genders, religions, and nationalities. The potential for dialog to generate between artists and the community at large, this is my motivator. This collaborative brings together people whom are passionate about art and the political well being of there country.

GO: What sort of message do you hope to send with this project?

JM: My idea in this project is not to preach about our countries over-dependency on oil, but, however, to propose questions to the participants and the viewers about energy and methods to obtain it, and our reliance on massive industries such as oil. I do not want to corner myself in too much with the specifics; I want the viewers and participants to construct passionate opinions derived from personal experience. Everyday, I add in comments from the community to the website, and it is exciting to watch it grow.

GO: Do you believe that the creative community (especially the "crafty" sector) can have a true impact on our environmental problems?

JM: I think it will be interesting to see all the different materials used by the participants to create these panels. For instance, most synthetic yarn materials are made with oil, and I find that interesting. If people choose to use these store-bought yarns, it might first look like a contradiction. However, it is a good example as to how far oil’s impact has gone. Even the materials that we choose to use in questioning oil’s impact are made with oil. I personally find this contradiction powerful. Not every person can afford the natural wool materials, which can get quite expensive. However, others may wish to clean and spin there own wool, or recycle old scrap cloths and stitch them together.

GO: Once the instillation is through, you plan to sell the individual panels to raise money for the Afghans for Afghans non-profit. Why this organization in particular?

JM: The potential for this collaborative is exciting. If enough panels are collected, then once this installation comes to a close, I can take the panels across the country (world) to cover larger abandoned gas stations, covering more ground and involving more people and places. An artist in Australia has already indicated her desire for the installation to travel to her country. But for this to happen, there have to be enough participants. At some point, I plan on selling either the panels – installation, and/or donating my research so that I might be able to give a contribution directly to a charity. I was hoping to stay in the fiber field, since the majority of participants are fiber artists whom also work for fiber charities. This is a matter in just letting time work itself out, and seeing what my options are down the road, and listening to suggestions.

GO: You will be at the Knit & Crochet Show in Oakland on September 27th-30th. What can visitors hope to learn about the project at the event?

JM: I am very excited to have a booth at the Knit and Crochet show in Oakland, CA. I will have all the information on how to participate, as well as the demonstration panels that were made to kick off this project. I will have sign-up sheets for people to receive monthly newsletters, as well as magnets, brochures, and printed images of the abandoned gas station (as attached) and gas station sketch (as attached). I will mainly be there to listen to people’s responses and opinions towards this project and it’s topic. My motivation will be to get people involved so to push the dialog and community spirit further.

GO: How can readers (even the non-creative inclined) get involved in this exciting installation?

JM: There are many ways for people to participate. If someone would like to participate, but rather not create a panel, I could always use donations of yarn to help participants crochet covers for the gas station pumps. Whatever yarn is not used will be donated to a charity. Also, I could use hands installing the panels in April, which basically would involve stitching panels together, and hanging out with great people from all over. Another area that I could use help with is promoting this project. Simple by sharing this project with friends and family is an easy way to participate, as well as sharing this project with any press that might be interested. This can take a volunteer little time, while making a big difference. So far, people are participating from China, Australia, Canada, and USA. People are getting excited and we are just getting started. The due date for panels is mid-March, with the installation happening in mid-April.

GO: Do you have any other nifty, secret projects in the works that you could hint at?

JM: Currently, I am working on 2-3 sheep cozies. They are crocheted stripes with black and white wool. The wool originally came from these sheep. The cozy is form-fitting, covering his whole body, legs, midsection, head, ears, tail, etc., leaving openings for the necessary parts. Around the sheep’s main, I have crocheted black and white flower pedal type shapes completely covering the cozy from the front legs to the sheep’s nose. Have you ever tried to fit a cozy on a moving sheep? This is the trick. You must find a sheep that was hand raised; occasionally you can find a couple on a farm. They are typically used for petting zoos and/or nativity scenes. However, you have to talk to the sheep for a while before they become comfortable with you. That is what the farmer said, and gave me a sheep talk 101 class when I went to go take measurements of the sheep. I will have the sheep on display with their cozies on in September or October at Syracuse University. I will have built a nice white picket fenced in area for the sheep to spend a couple days. The enclosure will containing food, dirt, hay, and water.

Now if the natural gas and land depletion aren’t enough to get you thinking; the water consumption is heinous. It takes two to four barrels of water to produce one barrel of bitumen (which is what they are really after). The used tailings are then stored, unusable, in tailings lakes, which have potential negative effects on the health of the environment and the population surrounding the contaminated area.

Oil Sands Facts

Climate Change
· Alberta’s greenhouse gas regulation does not require real reductions in emissions from oil sands operations.
· Oil sands production is much more greenhouse gas–intensive than conventional oil production.
· Oil sands are the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
· Continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions show that Canada’s commitment to address climate change falls far short of what’s needed.
· Large-scale carbon capture and storage for oil sands emissions is currently a distant and uncertain prospect.
· Companies are allowed to switch to burning dirtier fuels as a source of energy for oil sands extraction — further increasing greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands.

Water Impacts
· Oil sands mining uses two to four barrels of water for every barrel of bitumen produced.
· Oil sands companies are not required to stop withdrawing water from the Athabasca River, even if flows are so low that fisheries and habitats are at serious risk.
· Capping toxic tailings waste in end pit lakes with water is an unproven and risky concept.
· For over 40 years, oil sands mining companies voluntarily managed tailings on their own, in the absence of concrete government regulations.
· Tailings lakes seep toxic waste. It is uncertain exactly what is seeping, how much is seeping and what ecosystem components are affected.
· Tailings lakes house compounds known to be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms.
· Reclamation of tailings lakes has not yet been demonstrated.

Boreal Forest Impacts
· Alberta’s oil sands underlie one-fifth of the province, and development is already planned for more than 79,000 square kilometers.
· The Athabasca Boreal Forest will not be restored to its native state following mine closure.
· Oil sands mining reclamation standards are weak and lack transparency; only one square kilometer of land has been certified as reclaimed to date.
· The security bonds that are supposed to protect Canadians from costly environmental liabilities may be inadequate.

Perhaps Alaska’s natural gas store will help America achieve oil independence. But it is going to take strong regulations to stop the spread of “the most destructive project on earth.”

Photo Coutesy of Suncor Energy

Map Courtesy of Enbridge Pipelines