Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

How to Live a Low-Energy Lifestyle

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted April 5, 2007.


Americans can cut consumption and keep their affluence -- but it will take a change in priorities.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Kelpie Wilson

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Al Gore is really doing it, bringing climate awareness to the doorsteps of opinion makers and forcing them to consider all of its implications. Of course, no good deed ever goes unpunished in this country.

Aside from all the sniping about his annual home power bill (which turns out to be so high partly because he spends an extra five grand or so to buy wind power and might also have something to do with a vice president's security needs), lots of the usual "free market uber alles" types are accusing him and all green-minded folks of forcing them to wear the dreaded "hair shirt" of mandatory reductions in their energy use.

Incredibly, those who aren't complaining about the sacrifices are indignant about Gore making it all seem too easy. In Robert J. Samuelson's New York Times editorial last week titled "Hollywood's Climate Follies," he accuses Gore of painting the issue as "saints vs. sinners" and failing to acknowledge that "the lifestyles that produce greenhouse gases are deeply ingrained in modern economies and societies. ... Those who believe that addressing global warming is a moral imperative face an equivalent moral imperative to be candid about the costs, difficulties and uncertainties."

It's hard to tell exactly what triggered Samuelson's outrage, but it seems to be a line from Gore's Oscar acceptance speech where he said, "We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it."

But what will it take to renew that resource? Everywhere the conventional wisdom is that Americans will never give up their big cars, big houses, air conditioning set at 65 degrees on hot summer afternoons and incandescent light bulbs blazing throughout the house. This is the American way of life, and the idea that it cannot last seems to drive some people into hysterical fits. Don't just do something, panic! Al Gore and the greenies want to send us back to the 1970s!

There's no decade more reviled than the 1970s. Everything about it, from the funky earth-tone fashions, to the granola-chomping hippies, to disco, has been the butt of countless jokes. What I remember most about the '70s though, was getting my driver's license and then having to wait in line to buy gas because OPEC had decided to act like capitalists and charge what the market would bear. That formative experience set me on a career path concerned with energy and the environment. It also committed me to lifestyle choices that have led to me to where I am now -- sitting on a hillside in Oregon just beyond reach of the power grid.

With all the attention now on what are admittedly going to be the great challenges and sacrifices that lie ahead, I feel it incumbent to serve as an ambassador for the American low-energy lifestyle. It's really not so bad, folks.

That said, there's no way in which I feel I am some sort of paragon of sustainable living. I'm not. I drive a car, I buy too many cheap, imported consumer goods, and I take lots of hot baths and showers. In many ways, my life is like that of any typical suburban homeowner of modest means. Except that I make my own power for 11 months out of the year.

It's only 11 months, because after the rains start in November, it still takes a month for the creek to rise high enough to run the small hydropower generator that gets me through the cloudy winter months. So there's a month of running the gas generator, at least part of the time. But from April to October, there's plenty of sunshine to keep my batteries charged. And my system is a relatively small one. I have 700 watts of solar power that cost me about $5,000 to purchase and install.

My small power system is enough because I have taken several easy measures to keep my energy use within my means. No. 1 is to turn things off when they are not in use -- this includes light bulbs as well as the plethora of electronics and appliances that sit around sucking up standby power. Seventy-five percent of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off. Across the United States, this equals the annual output of 12 power plants and costs consumers over $1 billion each year. Buy some power strips so you can take back control over these "vampire loads."

Light bulbs are also crucial. Lighting is about 25 percent of US electricity use. Compact fluorescent (CF) light bulbs use about one-third the energy of incandescent bulbs. I hear a lot of griping about compact fluorescents -- the color is weird, they're not as bright, etc., and I don't understand it. I've been using them for ten years now and they have gotten so much better! The old ones were an awful blue color and they cost 10 or 15 bucks a piece. Now you can get them in a full spectrum of colors for less than two dollars. I don't miss incandescents a bit. Except for the sauna -- don't put a CF bulb where it will get too hot, like a recessed lighting fixture. I'm going to get one of the LED bulbs for my wood-fired sauna.

My small power system won't allow me to run electric heat or air conditioning. I have a wood stove for heat that also supplies hot water in the winter, and I don't need air conditioning here in Oregon. I have a propane refrigerator, bought back before we added the backup gas generator. I may switch to a superefficient, electric-powered refrigerator at some point. That leaves laundry. Luckily, the other member of my household seems to enjoy the trip to the town laundromat. It's a chance to hang out at the bagel shop and socialize.

Does all this amount to a hair shirt? Am I suffering, or do I feel deprived? No. When I need light, I have light. I've got a computer, phone and home entertainment whenever I want it. I stay warm, and I eat good food. I have friends and neighbors who share my values. We eat home-grown vegetables, play home-grown music and celebrate life. We eat (gasp!) granola.

I think there was a campaign against the hippies -- I'll never understand why we got such bad press, except that I think we were bad for business. We tended to value community over consumerism. But despite the repression, there are many ways that the hippie ideals have carried through into the mainstream culture.

The back-to-the-land movement may have started with the Foxfire series, that wonderful compendium of Appalachian traditional arts and crafts, but it ended with Martha Stewart. The American handcraft tradition is something we still long for. When we can't afford the shipping for cheap Chinese goods, maybe we'll support native handcrafters again. One person's hair shirt is another person's hand-knitted sweater from soft, locally grown Merino wool.

Living with the earth rhythms the way you do off-grid isn't for everyone, and it doesn't have to be. You don't have to like the hippie style or aesthetic. But you might have to start looking more Euro or Japanese than you really want to. The Japanese use half the energy we do, yet still maintain an affluent lifestyle. Many European countries do the same. We can look to Japan and Europe for models, but we can also do it our own way.

Now is our chance to develop the American low-energy lifestyle. You can see how I do it. Multiply my investment by ten and you can outfit a regular suburban house in California to meet all of its own energy needs plus charge an electric car. See "The Near-Zero-Energy Home Makeover" in Solar Today. But not everyone can afford to make that kind of personal investment in solar energy. We have to pull together to make it happen. It's mostly a matter of changing our priorities.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has projected that the final cost of the Iraq war will be at least a trillion dollars. I wondered how much solar power that money would buy, so I made a quick, back-of-the-envelope calculation. The installed cost of solar power is currently about $9 a watt, so $20,000 would buy a 2.2 kilowatt solar power system. That is enough power for a household with modest needs to spin the meter backward a good portion of the time. A trillion dollars would put a system like that on 50 million roofs.

Our parents and grandparents rose to the challenges of WWII and retooled our domestic industries into a finely honed war machine in a matter of months. There was no whining about "hair shirts" and sacrifice. There's a part of us that longs to make the kind of noble sacrifice we are called on to do in wartime. Many, many people are looking at their children today and wondering what they can do to leave them a world cool enough to live in. They are ready to do something now but don't know where to start. Here are the first two things everyone should do right now.

Start by turning things off. That's a very American mode from my growing up. Parents who lived through the Depression were always telling you to turn the lights off. Thrift is a virtue.

The other immediate sacrifice we all should make is to devote whatever amount of time it takes to contact all of our state and federal representatives and instruct them to start legislating Al Gore's 10-point action plan into reality. Do it now. There is no time to waste.

Note: Here's my advice for anyone who wants to start investing in a home energy system now. The variety of federal and state incentives programs is confusing, so start by going to Findsolar.com, a website supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the solar power industry. There you will find a database of qualified solar installers, along with a handy tool to estimate the size, cost and payback time of a system that meets your needs, taking into account your area's solar potential and the state programs you are eligible for. One word of caution: The estimator asks you to input your current average monthly power bill as a way of calculating your energy needs. This may lead to a much larger system than you really need. If you haven't already taken steps to reduce your use, do that first. In our experience of living off-grid, we have learned that it is much cheaper to invest in energy-saving light bulbs and appliances than to buy additional solar modules.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, solar power, al gore

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry. She is the author of "Primal Tears," an eco-thriller about a hybrid human-bonobo girl.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Yes, but Al Gore is no model of the low-energy lifestyle!
Posted by: gourdman on Apr 5, 2007 1:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a true believer in the low-energy lifestyle. I also believe that a real environmentalist must walk the walk, and not just talk the talk. Al Gore is no poster boy here; while I thank him for heightening public awareness of global warming, I found it irritating to see him, in "An Inconvenient Truth," tooling around in a large truck or SUV while casually mentioning that he raises black angus cattle. Can anyone say, "Disconnect?" This "environmentalist" also lives in a McMansion that guzzles energy, fathered four children well after the point where the human population bomb was a point of discussion in environmental circles, and has been a major investor in a rapacious oil corporation, Occidental Petroleum. Surely, we live in a world that needs environmental heroes, but I'm not entirely sure Al Gore is one of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cool
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 5, 2007 2:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love the idea of self-sufficiency and using renewable sources. But I get caught up in concerns about real-estate values, up-front investment, payback, building codes, etc. What if circumstances require me to move 6 months from now? The Soccer Family who buys our house wants a "normal" house for their kids to grow up in, so I have to spend $5,000 to undo the $5,000 I spent on the windmill, the solar panels, etc.

Samuelson-style critiques are right in that Al Gore has the sense of mission and the money to do all of that. Many of us are just trying to survive, and already watch our energy consumption.

The part that bothers me about the anti-hippies is the active resistance...throwing trash in the recycle bin, throwing recycles in the trash bin...throwing trash out the window, driving an SUV, etc. It all goes back to this American attitude that we can do whatever we want; f*** the environment and f*** the rest of the world. It's a big part of our national mentality, and only crisis circumstances will force a large-scale change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Anti-hippies" Posted by: ateo
» RE: "Anti-hippies" Posted by: NWCrow
» Just Remember Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Cool Posted by: plantsareneat
» RE: Cool Posted by: Artkansas
» Too a point ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
BIRTH CONTROL
Posted by: socialpsych on Apr 5, 2007 3:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The claim that "all you need is the right technology" to lead a low-impact lifestyle deserves some skepticism. Modern technology is what got us into this mess. While CFLs and PVs may be appealing, they have costs, such as mercury in CFLs and polluting PV manufacturing processes. The best strategy is primary prevention: don't have kids, as ateo alludes to above. That requires us to override our biological programming to replicate our DNA and to ignore socioculture beliefs and pressures to reproduce (e.g, "You're not a woman until you have a child"). We humans can do both these things. Capitalists will scream bloody murder, of course, because their economic models depend on increasing population sizes, but their economic models are killing the planet. People will cringe because they believe everyone has a "right" to have children. All of that is bullshit that we need to confront honestly. The fact is, more energy-guzzling humans means a hastened end to a livable planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good answer Posted by: kepstein7777
» Yep Posted by: WhatNow?
» Ecocide for a Quick Buck Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: BIRTH CONTROL Indeed Posted by: Arousiak
» RE: BIRTH CONTROL Indeed Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: BIRTH CONTROL Indeed Posted by: angryyoungwoman
We're Doomed
Posted by: expos on Apr 5, 2007 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With China and India booming and wanting a lifestyle like ours, with continued population increases in much of the world, and the fact that most North Americans are just not going to give up their affluent lifestyle, I really think we're doomed. Half of my life is over and I think I'll be ok, but I really wonder what kind of world will be left for my children and future grandchildren. Wonder what the Earth will be like 500 years from now, or 5 000 years from now? Unless drastic changes are made, I have little hope. (Toronto, ON)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Remember the '60's song... Posted by: truthteller
It's great when people do what they can to reduce their footprint
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Apr 5, 2007 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't mind brags about what folks are doing in that regard; done some of that myself. What we really need though is a "Conservation Czar" and a lot of legislation and government involvement: high speed rail, public transportation subsidies, much higher CAFE standards, outlawing incandescent bulbs (to the degree possible) combined with a recycling program that provides discounted new CFL bulbs with the return of old ones, "guzzler taxes" on inefficient vehicles with the proceeds used to subsidize the cost of efficient ones (The lower the milage, the higher the tax; the higher the milage, the greater the subsidy) - anyway, I'm only scratching the surface here - but you get the idea.

It isn't possible for everyone to suddenly change to the author's lifestyle, but if we make this a crash national priority and make a significant investment in R&D we could lead the world in new greener technologies - definitely a growth industry for decades to come.

Instead of leading the world in energy consumption and environmental impact, we can lead in the opposite direction - and incidentally create millions of jobs and enormous wealth in the process. That is what investment is supposed to do. With some real leadership on the national level, it will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We can do our part!
Posted by: williameon on Apr 5, 2007 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recycle
Drive less.
Change that light bulb.
Shut that light off!
Make more energy efficient:
Choices and purchases.
With your Dollar
This is how we can effect the market.
The Quit voice
Turns into a roar.
Practice
Energy conservation.
Everyday

Together we can beat this thing.
With cooperation and application
Of basic energy conservation principles.

The Three Y’s
Say:
Yes to more efficient Vehicles!
Say:
Yes to Fluorescent Light Bulbs
Say:
Yes to more efficient Appliances!

Make your World a better place
&
That’s a start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But most importantly . . . Posted by: swells
» unless you fly often Posted by: Beck
in many communities in this country...
Posted by: ellie on Apr 5, 2007 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
just try to pull a building permit for installing solar panels, wind generators or hydro power in our community!!!

power deregulation happened here a few years ago, but there are no 'green' energy suppliers in this state (ohio)...

our power bill rate per killowat hour is the same as our neighbors, but we manage to use fewer hours (a lot fewer) and our bill always seems to be higher then theirs... fees, taxes, generating charge, transmission surcharge etc...

don't say hire an electrician to figure out why our bill is higher because the other person in this home IS a journyman, union electrician...

my point is, that if you cut too far back on consumption, you are penalized...

ok, back to coffee and trying to figure out the electric bill that came in this morning!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I've discovered the same thing, Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
» The devil you know Posted by: eddie torres
Sell it back to the grid.
Posted by: Bart Thesc on Apr 5, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One enormous step this country could take towards promoting alternative energy would be to enact a federal law for all power companies to be required to allow individual customers to sell back excess power to the grids. Currently this is restricted in many places and an overarching federal regulation would in one fell swoop end any local fights to keep the restrictions in place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Arkansas does that, actually.. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Florescent light causes cancer
Posted by: ecoalex on Apr 5, 2007 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The light coming from fluorescent bulbs is of a wave length that causes skin cancer. I always feel sick in stores that have long arrays of fluorescent lights, I must wear my sunglasses to avert nausea. Florescent light bulbs are more toxic to the environment, using mercury, and other toxic materials compared to tungsten light bulbs.We need new lighting not keeping florescent light.
IMPEACH BUSH CHENNY NOW !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Florescent light causes cancer Posted by: CriminallySane
» RE: Florescent light causes skin cancer? Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer Posted by: juanpecan81
» RE: Florescent light causes cancer Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Florescent lights contain MERCURY!! Posted by: HoldmAccountable
distributed power
Posted by: lonpine on Apr 5, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw Al Gore the other night where he mentioned the idea of allowing anyone to sell power to anyone else. Currently, in California, if you have a home solar power system, you can make your meter run backwards if you have extra power but you're not using it, by sending it to the grid. At night, it'll run forward as you consume power from the grid. During the day, you sell it back to the utility, PG&E. But they set the price, and, importantly, at the end of the year, if you have any left over credit, you lose it.

Imagine if prices were set by the market, and you could essentially buy and sell power not only from and to the monopoly utility, but also to millions of other customer-producers. People could see the value of investing in solar systems. The price of solar would continue to drop. People's rooftops could become a source of revenue for them. Pass a carbon tax, and big utilities will see the price of solar and wind become even more competitive. Perhaps solar PV chips would start following Moore's law, and become ever more efficient with time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» distributed subsidies Posted by: eddie torres
» Risky, but worth the gamble Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: distributed power Posted by: truegenius
Unrealistic
Posted by: rdf on Apr 5, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people live in cities. There is little one can do in that environment to generate energy.

Then there are those who live in the suburbs and, increasingly, the exurbs. There is nothing that they can do to compensate for the ecological cost of driving, sprawl and loss of land to development. Some stories have started to emerge about the looming water crisis in the sun belt, but in truth there is no long range solution. People should be moving into the rust belt which has compact cities and plenty of existing infrastructure.

Then let's not forget the consumerism that underlies our economy. Walmart got as big as it is by selling us stuff we don't need that is cheaply made, shipped half way around the world and quickly replaced. Sorry, I belong to the group that thinks sacrifice is inevitable - even if no politician will talk about it. The US is 4% of the world's population and consumes 40% of the resources. This simply can't continue.

We can either make a plan to transition to a sustainable economy or mother nature will do it for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unrealistic Posted by: juanpecan81
JimZ
Posted by: jzelensk on Apr 5, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Notwithstanding all of the sideways slams by some commenators, your effort to add rationality and fun to the discussion is a good one. While all of us are not in a position to do what you have done, we can all do something!

In an inner ring suburb of Denver, we switched to all fluorescent lamps (we called them bulbs till our Electician son corrected our terminology!), got a front loader clothes washer (at Sears Scratch & Dent), hang dry our laundry over the tub, downsized our cars by around 50% in cu. inches, put on-off switches on some of our appliances (TV's, etc.), installed automatic timed thermostats, double-wrapped our water heater with insulation, and replaced a gas furnace (c. 1972) with a more efficient one without a pilot light, and replaced some single pane metal-frame windows and glass doors with double-pane wood frame ones. But we still have a ways to go: need to replace 20-yr. old fridge, dishwasher and stove with more energy efficient ones.

None of these actions killed us, and by doing them over about 5 years, smoothed out the financial hit. As a result, despite rising gas and electric rates, our monthly bill is slightly less than what it was in 1987. And oh, by the way, that is after adding a 1,000 square foot pop-up 11 years ago.

We're hardly wearing hair shirts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: JimZ Posted by: Madame Defarge
» RE: JimZ Posted by: truegenius
halve your heat bill to save the planet
Posted by: DrSuess on Apr 5, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a landlord, and own 6 houses (10 apartments) in downtown Indianapolis. I had a $3000 utility bill in March for all the cold weather this Spring. That made me “religious” very quickly. Actually, I had already decided my strategy of reducing my heat bills for the apartments in December- but I couldn’t implement it until it got warm. There is an old technology that almost no one talks about- passive solar thermosiphoning air panels. Bascially, they are glass or plexiglass put on a frame on the outside of the house. They then dump the heat generated by the sun into the house on a sunny winter day. An overhang keeps them from generating heat in the summer. You can find the details on how to build them in the library by looking up 1980’s books on passive solar energy. These are simple to build- I am currently buying the parts, and they will cost me several hundred dollars to install- not several thousand. They will reduce my heat bills enough in the first year to pay for themselves. My father did a retrofit like this to his house back in the 70’s and it cut his heat bill by 1/3. I live and own the apartments in a densely populated part of town, and yet the 5-6 ft distance between the houses still allows me to use this technology (with some creative designs). Many of the houses in the older parts of all American cities have “poor” insulation, and are energy hogs. Rehabbing these older homes is a simple way to decrease America’s energy dependence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reply to ….in many communities in this country...
Posted by: DrSuess on Apr 5, 2007 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know what this author is talking about when he describes the restrictive "zoning" laws that prohibit solar energy. In 2000, I was looking to buy a house- and I was shopping all the “right” places- the middle class neighborhoods and new home subdivisions. I remember one new home subdivision where I asked the salesman if I could put solar panels on the roof. He made it very clear that such a “preposterous” idea was out of line. He then explained to me that there was a case where one individual had painted his front door the “wrong” color- and they were going to force him to change it. My reaction was to wonder if the man was trying to sell me a home or trying to send me scurrying for the door.
Well, fate intervened, and I did not buy a house in the “right” part of town. Computer programmers were slammed with outsourcing after 2000, and in 2003 I got a pink slip made by “outsourced” programmers in India. Fate, as in a long period of underemployment (ie a highly skilled programmer grading tests, cleaning apartments, and flipping burgers) brought me into the deep downtown of Indianapolis.
I now own 6 houses in the deep downtown, all of them were in need of “rehab” when I bought them. I can tell you with certainly that it is possible to increase the energy efficiency of these old houses- I have done it. I can also tell you that there are places in every city where the government is extremely free with its building permits. As long as you don’t have a car up on blocks in your front yard- everything is ok. There are also new home subdivisions in Indianapolis where you cannot build a dog house, or plant the “wrong” kind of tree in your back yard, or put a fence around your yard.
Most people will not follow my course, and move into an old neighborhood in need of revitalization. There are however, many neighborhoods in Indy – almost all of them older neighborhoods, where you are fairly free to do what you want. The most restrictive rules about building permits are in the “new” neighborhoods- ie 1990 and 2000 houses. Neighborhoods built before that usually have more lenient rules. In Indy, there is an “artsy” place called Broad Ripple where I see quite a few solar panels on roofs. If you want freedom to do what you want – the older neighborhoods are better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can shove compact fluorescent bulbs where...nothing shines
Posted by: on Apr 5, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sick of hearing about compact fluorescent light bulbs. I've tried them, several times, and here is a summary of my experience:

* They're damned expensive. Roughly $15 for a single bulb.

* They die very quickly when turned on and off frequently. They fare better when left on permanently, which obviously defeats the whole purpose. (Even if they're more efficient than incandescents, I don't want them on all the time.)

* They contain mercury, which is an extremely nasty toxin. I'm not taking chances with direct mercury exposure, especially given I have a small child in my house.

* They are dangerous. On one occasion, one of those damnable compact fluorescent bulbs burned out on me (due to having been turned on and off too frequently). But rather than simply dying like an incandescent, what happened was that voltage continued to surge through it, and the plastic material in the base became extremely hot. I have no problem believing that if I wasn't there, a fire could have started. Did mercury get released as well? I have no way of knowing. I've also read reports from other people who have had the same extreme-heat-on-burnout issue happen to them. Search the internet on your own and you will see what I mean.

Given the expense, the toxicity, and the danger, I'll pass on these pieces of shit. Thanks anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Fear Mongols, not fear mongers Posted by: eddie torres
» Rubish Posted by: sondjata
» RE: ubish Posted by: truegenius
Just Start Already
Posted by: bttl on Apr 5, 2007 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK People- Instead of pointing fingers at Gore or whomever, how about doing something to reduce your energy footprint? Even if you live in a stupid subdivision with dumb zoning laws there is much you can do inside your house- changed all your bulbs to CFL's yet? And I don't want to hear you bitch that you hate them- I have nothing else and I can't figure out what the issue is with the modern ones. They work fine. There is much you can do inside and outside your house to reduce energy use.

There is the yard- quit scalping the lawn, grow a huge garden, and mulch, mulch, mulch. Don't use gadgets like those blowers- rake your leaves- and compost them.
Bike, walk, do mass transit if it exists. Carpool, lump your errands into one trip.
Quit buying so much stuff. Buy used. Really.
Buy local food- it matters.
Downsize to a smaller car or drive the one you have a lot less. Don't idle. Slow down. Don't tailgate.
Turn stuff off in the house. Unplug the phantom loads.
Don't wash clothing unless they are dirty-other than socks and underwear- why not wear it several times?
Insulate and calk leaks.
Turn down the heat. Quit using AC. Fans work.
Done all this? Well work on the town to relax their rules- so you can have no lawn if you want, hang the clothes out to dry and keep chickens or whatever.
Then worry about solar panels, wind gens etc if you want.

I live totally off-grid-but I do all of the above as well. I promise you-it's not painful, it's a good life and way cheaper too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just Start Already Posted by: truegenius
Trillions
Posted by: Guy on Apr 5, 2007 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As pointed out in this article, billions that have been spent on the Iraq War could have been spent on moving the US toward energy self-sufficiency. This Energy movement needs to be sold to the public as a "national security" issue. Let's see the Neo-Cons agrue with that one. Tax incentives, and govt-funded research need to be priorities.

We all know why Big Oil wants to maintain the status quo, but we need to be able to take back govt so that it can be used to lead us in the right direction.

"Lookin for a leader...."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

quality of life
Posted by: harinama on Apr 5, 2007 2:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amazing here in the United Corporatist States of America, that to live a good comfortable frugal life, you are "lowering your standard of living"(which is defined, i guess, by how much stuff you own).

Honest and frugal living for me has these tenets:

not wracking up massive debt (credit card)

using only the energy needed

getting more exercise by GOING OUTSIDE (vs. health clubs,
indoor crap trainers, etc)

not having children

recycling/composting everything possible

having a garden that supplements my food

using biodegradable disposable products (ie. plastic bags)

1 car in my family (vs 2-3 average)

taking a bus to work EVERYDAY

living in a modest size house at 1600sqft (vs 3000+ average)

reusing everything before throwing away (ie. wood scraps, nails, etc)

putting 20%+ of GROSS income away for retirement

refinanced to a 15yr house loan, saving us over $200k.

buying many clothes at a 2nd hand stores($3 for a shirt instead of $50), and shopping garage sales, etc.

driving ONLY when necessary. (ie. we use a handcart for groceries up to 3 bags)

last but not least, RESTRICTING TV(propaganda) WATCHING.

These are the things that EVERY family should be doing in America. We need to use peer pressure to change the habits of our families and friends. With enough outcry, the lawmakers will begin to take notice and force changes.

However, ultimately responsibility lies with the consumer. Think about it everytime you use your card, or whip out cash "Do i NEED this, or do i just WANT this"? That is the metric i used to help my wife change her spending habits, and now she is seeing the payoff, and we both have much less anxiety, as we now have a safety net, instead of living month to month.

In an era when most families are buried in debt, society has to start using peer pressure to get them to shape up. Govt needs to crack down on preditory lending, corporatist domestic and foreign programs, push CONSERVATION, better technologies with carrots and sticks, and reinstating a more progressive tax system, and STOP SPENDING THE NATIONAL TREASURY ON IMPERIALIST WARS.

We can make a difference by setting an example and hounding others who don't. These issues need to be taught extensively in schools, namely conservation, frugality and finance.It is far past time to worry about other people's feelings, or infringing on their "way of life" we need to shove frugality and conservation down their throats and make them pay dearly if they refuse to cooperate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: quality of life Posted by: churchofone
» RE: quality of life Posted by: truegenius
Private Jets
Posted by: vertical on Apr 5, 2007 2:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have all heard the following line: 1 American uses the same amount of energy as 250 (name any struggling third world country) inhabitant. I don't use that much energy, and neither do most Americans. The odds are twisted by our Athletes, Celebreties and COEs who can fly their jets on a whim. I wonder how many households would need to convert to mercury laden flourescent light bulbs to compensate for one ACC flying cross country to get their hair done by their favorite hair stylist?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The chores, the chores Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: The chores, the chores Posted by: peacefullaim
Something's missing
Posted by: joshuawelch on Apr 5, 2007 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author and many of the people who have commented have left one of the most critical and profound personal lifestyle choices we make regarding energy consumption: our dietary choices. It takes 30-50 times as much resources to feed your average non-vegan opposed to a vegan. A local plant based diet uses far less resources and produces much less waste and pollution than a meat and dairy based diet. These are the facts, but even most "environmentalists" choose to turn a blind eye to one of the most resource intensive and environmentally destructive industries: animal agriculture. A recent UN Report identified animal agriculture as a primary source of greenhouse gasses, above all transportation combined. A University of Chicago study indicated one reduces greenhouse gasses more by gong vegetarian rather than switching to a Toyota Prius from your average vehicle. A plant based diet is by far the most responsible diet before you considering the short miserable lives the vast majority of farmed animals live.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

momma gonna clean house
Posted by: mn on Apr 5, 2007 6:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Momma Earth, she is unhappy. Her dirty little children are making messes and not cleaning up after themselves. She can be very angry at times, and once she turns on you it gets very ugly. So, you have two choices: 1) get your act together and take care of yourself, 2) ignore reality and fiddle like the grasshopper. Me, I am getting ready. When Momma turns, I am prepared to help her out--all she is doing really is getting rid of bad genetic code, and she is perfectly justified in this extremely important task. I am making a list and checking it twice, 'cause Momma needs us with the good code to help her clean.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

double charge
Posted by: nutu on Apr 5, 2007 7:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have some energy efficient appliances and I've always turned off lights as my depression-survivor father said to. This January, I needed to save some money bigtime, so I began turning off and unplugging appliances I wasn't using. I hoped to slash my utility bill in half. Horror of horrors--it doubled! The electric company and affiliates said it was my own fault for turning things off because the surge to restart them was so great that it drove my bill up. I did two things. First I switched back to an electric company with whom I formerly had an account...I watched the bill and was going to have the same problem with them, albeit not quite as high. So the second thing I did was just leave the central air at 77 degrees and turn off the computer without turning off the power strip (and the same for other appliances). My bill is now half of what I normally paid before January. It's scary not to know how to be in control of your own expenditures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you poor city people-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Apr 5, 2007 8:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know how you stand it.
One thing you can do is shop secondhand for all your clothes. Fancy city 'work' clothes are such a joke. We should all be living in (Union made in America)blue jeans and tee shirts.

Meanwhile- shop second hand....think of it as a form of protest- a way to recycle- and a way to save LOTS of money- all in one!
A good start to changing the world-let's kill off the fashion industry!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: you poor city people- Posted by: truegenius
The biggest collective waste of electricity...
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 5, 2007 11:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest collective waste of electricity is probably the result of poorly designed municipal outdoor lighting, tons of which goes to the useless illuminating of the undersides of birds and planes. Anyone who has driven cross-country at night has seen the light dome over all our towns and cities. This is basically due to ineffecient fixtures and a more-is-better-and-safer philosophy hoisted on everyone by the GE's and electric utility companies of the world. Estimates are difficult to come by due to insufficient research on the topic, but probably billions (if not tens of billions) of dollars a year are wasted streaming light out into space. Maybe you've seen the photos of the earth at night as seen from satellites, all made possible by wasted light.

Anyone and everyone could and should raise the issue at their local city council meeting and encourage the issue to at least be factored into normal maintenance and replacement cycles as a good-governance issue. If we're all turning off our own lights, why don't we ask that cities do the same?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Findsolar.com
Posted by: bookie on Apr 5, 2007 11:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went to the website and plugged in my numbers. Estimated cost for a solar energy system in my area was 63,000 dollars. Years to break even was 32 years assuming appreciation of my property. Now I don't know about you all, but I don't have 63,000 dollars and I probably don't even have 32 more years to live. So I think for now I'll just stick with the CFL's and turning off unused appliances.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Findsolar.com Posted by: truegenius
How on earth is buring wood and using a laundromat green???
Posted by: rottndog on Apr 6, 2007 12:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have you never seen Aspen or any place else where a lot of people burn wood on late winter afternoon? It's like Los Angelos on a nice smoggy summer afternoon. One of the biggest problems in many african and other third world countried is deforestation caused by buring wood for cooking. Wood, even in a good modern stove, has a very poor energy conversion rate, creates substantial localized polution and, like the ethanol myth, would hardly be a renueable resource for any even meager percentage of the population.
As for the laundry being done at a laundromat......isn't that on the grid???? Uhless you happen to be using the most modern laudromat in the country it's not even likely they are very efficient machines.
As for the hydro power, that's one of the biggest environmental disasters in the country today, damning of streams. Maybe not your little part time brook...although that may be causing problems for some animals....but is that in any way something reproducible for even hundreds of thousands of americans???? Never mind millions?? Is the Three Georges dam in China a green form of energy?
You definitely make some good points but seem to really miss the mark on a few things too. If you need to use the laundromat, oh well, but don't say your off the grid.....and wood buring in hardly an enviromentally great way of doing anything, nor is damming streams and rivers.
Unfortunately I think your article tends to make largely exactly the opposite point it attempts. It is not really possible to live much of a life style on 700 watts of power, or even to make it all that cleanly with today's technology and prices. You are buring gas (some of the time, and in a small generator that is much dirtier per watt of output than large industrial plants, not to mention harder to regulate and the costs and dangers of fuel transportation), burning wood and damming streams. All that done on a large scale hardly adds up to a really green planet.
We should all be doing many of the conservation things you are and I praise you for your goals, it's just not close to what you make it out to be right now. We need a lot more funding of research, capital investment and much stronger regulation of outputs of pollutants of large power plants, much stronger CAFE standards, probably some form of Al Gore's BTU tax, LOTS more public transportation, better designed and sited housing, stop or minimize wasteful outdoor lighting....it's a long list, and it includes lots of things people will see as sacrifices, even if over all it's a much better lifestyle...oh, and eating less meat would make a huge difference too!
When modern and efficient, and well regulated, large industrial power plants are orders of magnatude cleaner than your wood furnace or gas generator. That's something we could make huge difference in if the congress and president would act like it matters.
:) Mark McCabe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what is going on really?
Posted by: richholland on Apr 6, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
years ago farmers in Northern germany and holland had little wind mills and sold their surplus to electric companies. Nowadays regulations make this impossible.

Big companies like PROFITS, so if you use less energie the prices will go up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lets
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Apr 6, 2007 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
put something into perspective here.....Things are not as dire as all that.... consider for a minute that the fact is according to the UN: From 1990 to 2004 The US increased Greenhouse gas emmisions by 13.3%... Wile seven European countries exceeded that amount..Moreover..Hydrocarbon emmisions from cars and trucks have gone from 10.2 grams per mile in 1960 to 0.4 grams per mile in 2006. And even more important carbon monoxide emmisions have fallen by 70.6 % nitrus oxide by 45.8%...
In the 1980s LA had 1762 days of unhealthy air warnings... in the 1990s it had 658 days.. a drop of 62.7 %. The point is yeah we have done some stupid crazy things to our planet, but we have actually been cleaning things up with little fanfare...
Consider also the fact between 1982 and 2002 the US eliminated 92% of environmental dioxins. Not to mention the fact that lead once found in the bloodstreams of babies is now absent from the majority...
I think it is far more useful to look at the successes that we have had and build on them rather than point fingers and bitch and moan and say that everytthing is awful...Ask yourselves this... what are you more attracted to? A cause with a positive message with hope or that which constantly berates and belittles people for thier lifestyles.... I certainly know I will always be more inclined to latch onto a cause that is certain of success...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lets Posted by: truegenius
Think big
Posted by: Madame Defarge on Apr 6, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it's great that so many people are getting into saving energy on an individual basis, consevation need to be made come on a macro scale, if we're going to stop climate change. We need to pressure local, state, and national governments, and international groups to put laws into effect that will have a real and lasting impact.

1. Most office buildings in large cities are lit up through out the night, every night. We could adopt laws that would charge office buildings triple the electrical rate from 7:00pm until 7:00pm.

2. For decades, many third world countries have refused to require catalytic converters on their cars and trucks, even though they make a big difference in both air quality and carbon emissons. The World Bank and UN could offer subsidies for public transportation and buyouts of old lead based fuel cars and trucks.

3. All coal fired plants the world over should be required to have scrubbers, while all automobile manufacturers should have a target to boost their gas milage by at least 50% in the next 5 years.

4. Put a $20.00 surcharge on all 660 million plane tickets sold in the US every year and use the money to build a high speed rail system. With dough like that we could change the way much of America travels, perhaps within a decade.

5. Likewise, a penny per gallon tax on gasoline sales could raise almost 1.5 billion dollars per year (if my math is right) which could be put into public transportation projects such as subways, street cars and light rail.

6. San Francisco has a system that gives all residents a bin for compost, that is collected every week along with the trash and recycling. The city then sells the compost. It's great way to cut down on carbon emissions that's good for the soil, too.

If we put our energy into inspiring governments and businesses to make massive changes, we'll get a lot more accomplished a lot sooner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you poor or just re-direct your affluence?
Posted by: dayahka on Apr 6, 2007 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I'm wondering is, Is there something more behind your energy posture? That is, did you adopt this because you have limited economic means (doubtful for an engineer, unless you just plain don't like to work) or have you just re-directed your affluence? Do you, for example, travel more and spend less for energy and food? What if you were affluent, would you still opt for low-energy consumption, or would you, like Gore and others, simply indulge yourself and pay an indulgence or two for your "sin"? I just find it rather difficult to get all excited about rich people talking about low energy consumption; like someone saying, all you need is 50,000 dollar solar system and you're off the grid (do you have 50 thou in spare change, brother?).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has Al Gore's CO2 Theory Fizzled Out? (part one)
Posted by: johndoraemi on Apr 6, 2007 6:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Crimes of the State Investigation

If you track the popular Internet videos, you may have come across a British TV production called The Great Global Warming Swindle (Google Video). I do not wish to defend the propaganda, the personalities, or the several straw man arguments that appear in this lengthy program.

All I want to focus on is the science.

This is a study of some global warming dissenters in the climate field.

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is also explored, in particular Gore's central claim, the theory of manmade global warming as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:

"The relationship is very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." --Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth

This quote is presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle at around 20 minutes in, and then it is mercilessly shredded by the climate scientists.

According to Al Gore's theory, increased levels of carbon dioxide CAUSE an increase in global temperature. But, interestingly enough, Al Gore does not prove this in his film. Far from it. The very real possibility that increases in temperature cause an increase in carbon dioxide levels (and not vice-versa) is never addressed. Al Gore has short-changed humanity in this most glaring omission: establishing causation.

So, which is it?

Does a rise in carbon dioxide cause a rise in the temperature?

OR, does a rise in the temperature cause a rise in carbon dioxide?


This is no small question. The entire global economy is being reengineered on the assumption that the first scenario is true. But is it really?

What About 800 Years of Lag?

The big counter-argument to Gore is made by Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa. Clark says that the ice core record shows that changes in atomospheric carbon levels come after the temperature has already changed, in one example by as much as 800 years.

"CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes. It's a product of temperature. It's following temperature changes." --Professor Ian Clark

This is highly significant, if true, as it completely disproves Al Gore's theory of manmade global warming. This view is seconded by Professor Tim Ball, a Climatologist at the University of Winnipeg:

"But the ice core record shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change -- due to humans -- is shown to be wrong." --(emphasis in original) Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg

Is There a Better Alternative Theory?

The film presents an alternate theory that better matches the data: Changes in sun activity cause changes in global temperature.

Other scientists who study sunspots, which are actually gigantic storms and indicate more solar activity, present their case.
The data record of changes in solar activity can be corroborated by multiple data sources. The conclusion of the film is that this record proves that sun activity correlates to global temperature far better than CO2 levels do.

This is a simplified, scaled-down summary of the claims made by the two camps.Further investigation will be needed.

continues

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Continued Posted by: johndoraemi
Hemp IS the solution!
Posted by: 420africa on Apr 7, 2007 9:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The easiest solution is often the one most overlooked:

420africa.org


The 420 Africa Project






Did you know that a very simple way to restore wealth to Africa is to grow a lot of pot there? In fact, at roughly 25% of Africa's total crop production, Africa would soon become the wealthiest continent on Earth.


Pot or Marijuana also known as Hemp is one of the most useful plants on the planet.


Hemp can be easily grown where the earth is arid, and can, in fact, thrive in a low water environment creating a root system 6 feet deep. After harvest, the soil where the hemp was sown is healthier and aerated 6 feet deep into the earth making a perfect environment for crops previously untenable in the same soil. The newly aerated soil will be sufficient for most harvested fruit, vegetable & grain crops.




Our Mission:


We have outlined five major steps to accomplishing the most efficient transfer of wealth to the African continent:


Step 1:


Africa begins to rotate 25 percent of all its crops as hemp creating a rich fertile soil for all desired crops. Africa improves its soil aeration to add new crops




Step 2:


Africa creates hemp fiber and hemp paper assembly line products that would soon easily dwarf the current American textile sources.




Step 3:


Africa uses a biodeisel fuel created by Hemp to eliminate world oil markets. The amount of clean burning biodeisel would be about 50 percent of all hemp crop production in Africa at current oil usage levels.




Step 4:
Africa becomes the world leader in marijuana medical therapies; including drug derivatives; concentrated extracts and methodology. Rastafarian Jamaicans with connections to Ethiopia or other African nations help spread the word throughout Africa about how to grow and use marijuana.




Step 5:
African people restore pride & prominence to their history and culture. Africa becomes a very safe healthy environment choosing its own non-colonial destiny.


End of Mission

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But not the rich
Posted by: vertical on Apr 9, 2007 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are all supposed to give up are incandescent light bulbs for mercury laden fluorescent one, but the rich don't need to give up their private jets. I wonder how many households would need to switch over to the mercury laden bulbs to compensate for one Hollywood celebrity flying cross country to get their hair done by their favorite hair stylist?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your 700 watts
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Apr 10, 2007 7:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So you produce your own energy. But how much energy did it take to produce what you use to produce your energy? heh

And where did THAT energy come from?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement