President Elect Obama

Change.org is poised with a clean interface to send ideas to our president elect for his next four years. Anyone can send their ideas for promoting the change they like to see, while the world can vote on these ideas. Try it out for your self at Change.org

Here are 100 steps we can all make to go greener in the coming year!

In Your Home – Conserve Energy

1. Clean or replace air filters on your air conditioning unit at least once a month.
2. If you have central air conditioning, do not close vents in unused rooms.
3. Lower the thermostat on your water heater to 120.
4. Wrap your water heater in an insulated blanket.
5. Turn down or shut off your water heater when you will be away for extended periods.
6. Turn off unneeded lights even when leaving a room for a short time.
7. Set your refrigerator temperature at 36 to 38 and your freezer at 0 to 5 .
8. When using an oven, minimize door opening while it is in use; it reduces oven temperature by 25 to 30 every time you open the door.
9. Clean the lint filter in your dryer after every load so that it uses less energy.
10. Unplug seldom used appliances.
11. Use a microwave when- ever you can instead of a conventional oven or stove.
12. Wash clothes with warm or cold water instead of hot.
13. Reverse your indoor ceiling fans for summer and winter operations as recommended.
14. Turn off lights, computers and other appliances when not in use.
15. Purchase appliances and office equipment with the Energy Star Label; old refridgerators, for example, use up to 50 more electricity than newer models.
16. Only use electric appliances when you need them.
17. Use compact fluorescent light bulbs to save money and energy.
18. Keep your thermostat at 68 in winter and 78 in summer.
19. Keep your thermostat higher in summer and lower in winter when you are away
20. Insulate your home as best as you can.
21. Install weather stripping around all doors and windows.
22. Shut off electrical equipment in the evening when you leave work.
23. Plant trees to shade your home.
24. Shade outside air conditioning units by trees or other means.
25. Replace old windows with energy efficient ones.
26. Use cold water instead of warm or hot water when possible.
27. Connect your outdoor lights to a timer.
28. Buy green electricity - electricity produced by low - or even zero-pollution facilities (NC Greenpower for North Carolina - www.ncgreenpower.org). In your home-reduce toxicity.

In Your Home – Reduce Toxicity

29. Eliminate mercury from your home by purchasing items without mercury, and dispose of items containing mercury at an appropriate drop-off facility when necessary (e.g. old thermometers).
30. Learn about alternatives to household cleaning items that do not use hazardous chemicals.
31. Buy the right amount of paint for the job.
32. Review labels of household cleaners you use. Consider alternatives like baking soda, scouring pads, water or a little more elbow grease.
33. When no good alternatives exist to a toxic item, find the least amount required for an effective, sanitary result.
34. If you have an older home, have paint in your home tested for lead. If you have lead-based paint, cover it with wall paper or other material instead of sanding it or burning it off.
35. Use traps instead of rat and mouse poisons and insect killers.
36. Have your home tested for radon.
37. Use cedar chips or aromatic herbs instead of mothballs.

In Your Yard

38. Avoid using leaf blowers and other dust-producing equipment.
39. Use an electric lawn- mower instead of a gas-powered one.
40. Leave grass clippings on the yard-they decompose and return nutrients to the soil.
41. Use recycled wood chips as mulch to keep weeds down, retain moisture and prevent erosion.
42. Use only the required amount of fertilizer.
43. Minimize pesticide use.
44. Create a wildlife habitat in your yard.
45. Water grass early in the morning.
46. Rent or borrow items like ladders, chain saws, party decorations and others that are seldom used.
47. Take actions that use non hazardous components (e.g., to ward off pests, plant marigolds in a garden instead of using pesticide).
48. Put leaves in a compost heap instead of burning them or throwing them away. Yard debris too large for your compost bin should be taken to a yard-debris recycler.

In Your Office

49. Copy and print on both sides of paper.
50. Reuse items like envelopes, folders and paper clips.
51. Use mailer sheets for interoffice mail instead of an envelope.Use mailer sheets for interoffice mail instead of an envelope.
52. Set up a bulletin board for memos instead of sending a copy to each employee.
53. Use e-mail instead of paper correspondence.
54. Use recycled paper.
55. Use discarded paper for scrap paper.
56. Encourage your school and/or company to print documents with soy-based inks, which are less toxic.
57. Use a ceramic coffee mug instead of a disposable cup.

Ways To Protect Our Air

58. Ask your employer to consider flexible work schedules or telecommuting.
59. Recycle printer cartridges.
60. Shut off electrical equipment in the evening when you leave work.
61. Report smoking vehicles to your local air agency.
62. Don’t use your wood stove or fireplace when air quality is poor.
63. Avoid slow-burning, smoldering fires. They produce the largest amount of pollution.
64. Burn seasoned wood - it burns cleaner than green wood.
65. Use solar power for home and water heating.
66. Use low-VOC or water-based paints, stains, finishes and paint strippers.
67. Purchase radial tires and keep them properly inflated for your vehicle.
68. Paint with brushes or rollers instead of using spray paints to minimize harmful emissions.
69. Ignite charcoal barbecues with an electric probe or other alternative to lighter fluid.
70. If you use a wood stove, use one sold after 1990. They are required to meet federal emissions standards and are more efficient and cleaner burning.
71. Walk or ride your bike instead of driving, whenever possible.
72. Join a carpool or vanpool to get to work.

Ways to Use Less Water

73. Check and fix any water leaks.
74. Install water-saving devices on your faucets and toilets.
75. Don’t wash dishes with the water running continuously.
76. Wash and dry only full loads of laundry and dishes.
77. Follow your community’s water use restrictions or guidelines.
78. Install a low-flow shower head.
79. Replace old toilets with new ones that use a lot less water.
80. Turn off washing machine’s water supply to prevent leaks.

Ways to Protect Our Water

81. Revegetate or mulch disturbed soil as soon as possible.
82. Never dump anything down a storm drain.
83. Have your septic tank pumped and system inspected regularly.
84. Check your car for oil or other leaks, and recycle motor oil.
85. Take your car to a car wash instead of washing it in the driveway.
86. Learn about your watershed.

Create Less Trash

87. Buy items in bulk from loose bins when possible to reduce the packaging wasted.
88. Avoid products with several layers of packaging when only one is sufficient. About 33 of what we throw away is packaging.
89. Buy products that you can reuse.
90. Maintain and repair durable products instead of buying new ones.
91. Check reports for products that are easily repaired and have low breakdown rates.
92. Reuse items like bags and containers when possible.
93. Use cloth napkins instead of paper ones.
94. Use reusable plates and utensils instead of disposable ones.
95. Use reusable containers to store food instead of aluminum foil and cling wrap.
96. Shop with a canvas bag instead of using paper and plastic bags.
97. Buy rechargeable batteries for devices used frequently.
98. Reuse packaging cartons and shipping materials. Old newspapers make great packaging material.
99. Compost your vegetable scraps.
100. Buy used furniture - there is a surplus of it, and it is much cheaper than new furniture.

A novel idea from SEOL

The following speech was given at Netroots Nation 2008 in Austin, Texas.

I have a little bit of whiplash. Thirty-six hours ago I was in the Arctic with Jimmy Carter. This is not a joke, you all. (Laughter) It sounds like a joke, right? You hear about the black guy in the Arctic with Jimmy Carter? No, I was really … (Laughter)

I was really in the Arctic, man, the abominable snow Negro. No, I was really there. (Laughter) And the reason, so I’m a little bit jet-lagged, but I want you to know, if you didn’t know, it was kind of kept quiet until it was over. But a number of people, huge dignitaries, all got on a boat and went to the Arctic. We spent eight days. Jimmy Carter was there. Madeline Albright. Tom Daschle. Larry Page from Google. But not just liberals and progressives; the head of DuPont was there, eight days on a boat, to look and see if what’s happening with climate change is real. The head of Monsanto was there. We had Republicans and Democrats, young people, old people, state leaders, Catholics, evangelicals.

And I want you to know that after eight days of looking with our own eyes of what’s going on, looking at the glaciers receding, looking at the animals and life up there that’s suffering, watching the actual results and impacts of global warming, that every single person who is a part of that delegation, Left, Right and otherwise, agreed that Al Gore has been right the whole time. Global warming is real.

We have to do something about it. Nobody who goes and spoke at this thing has come to any other conclusion. You need to understand that. This is our moment. This is our opportunity. Before I get to my comments, though, since we’re here, I want to tell you about my personal experience in the Arctic.

First of all, they had us on this boat, man. Lot of people have bad experiences of boats, man. You know, we’re … (Laughter) far back memories, man. I was like, I don’t like this. (Laughter) It was tough, man. And then, boats are not big things. They’re not airplanes. I guess it’s left over from the days of scurvy or something. They’re small. And, OK, I busted my head open, man. I’m serious. I busted my head open on a bulkhead, like the first day, which was not very impressive. (Laughter) So, a little bit woozy.

The other thing that happened was, we had a meeting. We had a delegation, this meeting of the delegation of polar bears. And they’re very polite, the polar bears. And they’re very friendly. The polar bears were not as skinny and scrawny as I expected. They were definitely smaller than they were supposed to be, but they also looked toned, looked pretty healthy.

So I said, what’s going on? You guys look at lot healthier than I expected. And nobody said anything. The polar bears, they got quiet. (Laughter) And the only polar bear that spoke up was a black one. (Laughter) Oh, see? You didn’t know there was black polar bears. Now I’m telling you, man. Racism everywhere. (Laughter)

But the black polar bear was honest, man. He said, look. Tell you the truth. The seals, they are getting kind of scarce up here. But we’ve been snacking on these camera crews y’all keep sending. (Laughter) So tell Gore to keep giving the speeches, man. The camera crews are tasty. (Laughter) So I say that because it’s so important that we do more than just send delegations to the Arctic and talk about it, and worry about it. It’s time to take some real action. And I want to talk with you about our action plan. And I want to talk with you about the importance of it, because one of the things that I saw when I was there was up close and personal with Jimmy Carter.

I think a lot of times, in the progressive movement, we kind of almost go along with the conservatives in making fun of Jimmy Carter, almost turning him into a punch line. But I want to say, seeing him day after day, he’s one of the truly great human beings that’s ever lived on this earth.

We need to give him the respect that he’s due. Jimmy Carter was talking about the oil crisis. He was talking about solar power. He was talking about wind energy 30 years ago. And if we had stayed with his program, if we had stayed with his policies, we wouldn’t be where we are today. So he deserves the utmost respect from all of us. We need to rehabilitate Jimmy Carter.

If conservatives can rehabilitate Ronald Reagan, we can certainly rehabilitate Jimmy Carter. We have to learn the lessons, too, from his presidency, because we are about to go into a very similar situation. Many of you are excited about the Democratic nominee. Many of you are excited about having a Democrat back in the White House and think that your efforts may lend a hand toward getting him elected.

I want to say to you, your excitement is understandable, and your ability to get him elected is not in doubt. You probably can get this nominee elected. You probably cannot get him re-elected. I’m going to say it again. You can probably get him elected, but you probably cannot get him re-elected, unless we are very intelligent starting right now. Now is the time to think about the re-election of this president, not just the election.

And the last time we had a Democrat in the White House, Democrats controlling the Senate, Democrats controlling the House, energy prices through the roof, jobs going down, was Jimmy Carter. And we had four years of that, and 12 years of Reagan-Bush. If we are not careful, if we are not smart, this could be four years as a precursor to the kind of right-wing backlash that will make us miss John McCain, make us miss George W. Bush. Don’t think it’s not possible. There are dragons on the Right who, in their anti-immigrant hatred, in their warmongering jingoism, in their commitment to drill and burn their way out of our energy crisis, will make you miss John McCain.

Read the rest of Van Jones’s speech at AlterNet!

More parks, fewer cars. The Zen-like philosophy behind Park(ing) Day — the annual event that attracts artists, urban planners and open space advocates interested in setting up ad hoc miniature parks in metered parking spaces on urban streets — appears to have hit a tipping point. What began as a quirky San Francisco-based project by experimental art collective Rebar in 2005 will encompass 50 American cities and several international ones in 2008. Recent years have seen parking lot-sized croquet and lawn bowling games, kiddie pools, solar panels, libraries and temporary urban gardens.

For Matthew Shaffer, from The Trust for Public Land, a co-sponsoring organization, the growing popularity of the event signifies a genuine shift in awareness of the need for more (and better) urban parks. In San Francisco, for instance, the day will mark a collaborative effort to renovate three parks that didn’t receive funding through a recent bond measure. Shaffer says he’s seeing more and more cities seeking out creative ways to balance parks with development and transit. “These changes are perhaps slow to materialize, but Park(ing) Day reminds us that common spaces, public parks and nature in the city are important and valuable.”

Not that awareness of the problems inherent in today’s car culture is all it takes to stop driving. Dave Snyder, the transportation policy director at San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) doesn’t see fewer actual parking spaces in the immediate future.

“We’ve become so dependent on cars that many of us view them as extensions of ourselves,” says Snyder, adding that most policy measures to reclaim space from cars can cause many drivers to act as if they’ve literally been pulled from their driver’s seat. But he’s optimistic about the reach of this year’s event. “It will be difficult to reclaim urban space from the oppressive domination by cars, but Park(ing) Day — a whimsical, creative day of instant parks and jubilant people — is a rare chance to succeed at doing that.” Visit parkingday.org.

Also visit Conscience Choice!

As if the announcement of a high-speed rail line that will go from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes isn’t exciting enough, Navigant Consulting now claims that the bullet train can run with zero greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the energy consulting firm, the train’s expected usage of 3,350 GWh each year can easily be generated using renewable energy resources in California. The rail line’s energy consumption will be about one percent of the state’s total energy usage—not bad considering its speed, convenience, and potential for widespread use.

The 800-mile bullet train system is being built by the California High-Speed Rail Authority. By 2030, the 220 MPH high-speed trains will carry up to 100 million passengers per year. The ultimate fate of the project will be decided this November, when the state’s $9.95 billion bond measure for the train is voted upon.

It’s hard to comprehend the reduction in carbon emissions that will occur once the train is running—just think about the effect of even one quarter of the people who would normally drive or fly across the state opting for high-speed rail. And why wouldn’t they want to take a train that drastically cuts travel time and eliminates the hassles of sitting in traffic and trekking through airport security? I know I’ll be first in line.

Visit CleanTechnica!

SHAPLEIGH, Maine - Walk about 100 yards down a well-worn path, past wild berry bushes, and take a left into leafy growth. Just a few more feet into the green canopy, and there they are, jutting out from the earth.

“I don’t even like the sight of them here,” said Liz McMahon, a Shapleigh resident for 23 years, as she stared, frowning at the 3-foot-high rust-colored pipes.

These metal fingers are the source of a fierce debate that has gripped this small town and others across Maine, forcing residents to choose between Poland Spring - a company with a century-old history in the state - and their newfound environmental and social sensibilities.

For more than a hundred years, the company has drawn waters from Maine springs and marketed it to the world as just possibly “the best tasting water on earth.” But now McMahon and others are part of a growing movement raising questions about the homegrown company’s corporate parents - Nestlé Waters North America purchased it in 1992 - and the very concept of bottled water, which uses plastic and oil to deliver a product that many can get from their faucet.

As the company seeks to tap new springs, a number of towns have begun to push back against locating water-extraction sites on their land, forcing this quintessentially Maine company to consider the once unthinkable: looking to other states for its water.

“We’re a Maine company,” said Mark Dubois, Poland Spring’s natural resource director. But if the industry continues to grow, he said, the company is going to need more water.

“We might have to force our hand,” he said.

Later this month, Shapleigh residents will decide whether to put a moratorium on water pumping, which would freeze Poland Spring’s plans to test the town’s water. In Ogunquit, selectmen are considering a citizen petition they received in opposition to water extraction. Nearby Wells residents are set to vote in November on a 180-day moratorium, much like the one in Shapleigh, while they prepare an ordinance that would set ground rules for pumping.

But the issue is greater than extraction alone. Poland Spring, the nation’s third-leading brand of bottled water, after Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo, is facing mounting pressure on other fronts.

Take Back the Tap, a national organization that encourages people to eschew bottled water, recently launched a campaign in Portland.

Activists in Kennebunk are boycotting Poland Spring in protest against Nestlé, after the company tried to purchase water from the local water district for bottling. At a war protest in early August, organizer Jamilla El-Shafei asked participants not to bring Poland Spring water.

“There is definitely a movement afoot,” El-Shafei said. “They’re trying to corporatize and commodify water. . . . Water should be in the public trust.”

The three pipes in Shapleigh were thrust into the ground a couple of years back, when Poland Spring was testing state-owned spring water as a possible source. The site was good - just the right minerals for just the right taste - but the state’s asking price was not.

So, earlier this year, Poland Spring began eyeing town-owned land.

McMahon and other residents who oppose the extraction site worry for a number of reasons. They worry that the increased truck traffic will be too much. They worry that a site would taint land where children play, adults hike, and neon-green caterpillars crawl. They worry the town is being scammed by a large, uncaring multinational company.

“Maine is sort of precious, so it really doesn’t matter where they put the loading station or the pumping station,” McMahon said.

Denise Carpenter, a lifelong resident of neighboring Newfield and a member of a group that opposes water extraction, worries that the cost could outweigh the benefits.

“I have lived here all my life,” Carpenter said, swatting at bugs near the pipes. “I treat the earth well. . . . I just don’t believe” Poland Spring when it says it will, too.

The Poland Spring company began back in 1845, drawing water only from its namesake site. Today it draws water from seven sites across the state and employs about 800 Mainers.

At its Hollis bottling facility - the largest spring water-bottling plant in North America - bottles fly through the air along metal tracks. Machines fill them with water trucked in from across the state and pumped in from a source just down the road - a small slip of water where mosquitoes hunt.

Up the hill from that spring, hidden in picturesque stone cabins like the ones Poland Spring would like to put in Shapleigh, pumping stations draw water from the underground aquifer.

Spring water, Dubois said, is a renewable resource, one that gets replenished every time the clouds break open, rain falls to the ground, and the water seeps into underground reserves.

He dismissed many of the opponents’ concerns as scare tactics courtesy of national environmental groups.

“I want to know where we have been a bad neighbor,” Dubois said. “It’s interesting that so few people can make so much noise.”

But they are.

“It’s definitely a big deal,” said Michael Perro, chairman of the Shapleigh Board of Selectmen. “I would say that . . . it’s going to be a very, very close vote.”

Poland Spring has launched it own grass-roots campaign. There’s the traditional stuff: ads in the local newspapers and presentations at town meetings. Then there’s the untraditional: Mark Dubois’s local blog and door-to-door visits.

“A lot of our grass-roots effort is focused on ‘What is it like to have Poland Spring in your town?’ ” Dubois said.

That effort landed at Art Ingersoll’s front door in the form of a bottle of Poland Spring water.

“I don’t drink it,” said Ingersoll, a resident of Shapleigh for 12 years. “But it’s sitting on my table.”

On their way out of a local tavern, he and his friend Roger Gagne said they are still not sure what to think.

“I’m willing to keep an open mind and let them test,” Ingersoll said.

Gagne doesn’t much mind them testing, either. “But I don’t want to see them getting a contract we can’t get out of.”

Ingersoll looked at his friend. “Hypothetically speaking, if they said, ‘We’d give $1 million to the town each year for 30 years,’ what would you say?”

Gagne paused. “I don’t know.”

by Ryan Kost from CommonDreams

Coal River Mountain is one of the last mountains left intact in the beautiful Coal River Valley of West Virginia. However, Massey Energy has plans to mine 6,000+ acres of the mountain - or almost 10 square miles.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to mountaintop removal mining on Coal River Mountain – wind power. This is a unique opportunity to move our nation and the state of West Virginia toward the production of clean energy, and to preserve our nation’s mountains for generations to come.

But first, we need your help! Citizens from the Coal River Valley and across the United States are working together to create healthy jobs for Southern West Virginia, and clean, affordable energy for Appalachia. Let West Virginia officials know that we have a healthier choice for a diversified economy and safer communities in the Coal River Valley.

.

This wind farm would:

· Create Jobs 200 local employment opportunities during construction, and 50 permanent jobs during the life of the wind farm. It takes only 27 years for a wind farm to provide a greater number of one-year jobs than the four surface mines combined.

· Create Energy – Provide 440MW of electricity - or enough energy for 150,000 homes – indefinitely, as well as a sustained tax income that could be used for the construction of new schools for the county.

· Create Economic Potential – Allow for concurrent uses of the mountain including harvesting of wild ginseng and valuable forest plants, sustainable forestry, and mountain tourism, as Coal River Mountain is one of West Virginia’s finest mountains.

.

· Preserve Heritage – Coal River Mountain has provided for the people of the Coal River Valley for generations. A mountaintop removal mine would block residents from the mountain and destroy the lands ancestors once lived on, as well as the family cemeteries they rest in.

· Protect the Land and Community – More than 500,000 acres in West Virginia alone have been destroyed by surface mining. Mountaintop Removal mining buries and poisons drinking water, increases flooding, damages homes and personal property, and devastates wildlife habitat.

Find out more about this green action plan at  Coal River Wind.

Most who live in a residential neighborhood in the city, or the burbs, have the island out front. You know, the one grassy null between sidewalk and street. Why have just a plain strip of grass when you can have a bountiful garden?

Why not add more plant diversity to our neighborhood and planet? Why not grow nutritious, wholesome food for our bodies? And why not reduce the use of the lawnmower, hence less harmful greenhouse gasses? Our house is preparing to till the monoculture parked out front, and are now setting seeds for an herb garden. We have a neighbor who has a mix of shrubs and flowers as their island.

I have seen others with raised beds filled with rows of strawberries, tomatoes, lettuce, and basil. We’re looking forward to tilling up the island space and filling it with future dinner herbs. While we’re at it, why not start a coalition of volunteers who convert other neighbor’s islands to gardens! Who knows, maybe we could even feed hungry people, from our urban islands!

A community in Canada has an unusual form of solar power that can provide over 90% of the annual heating and hot water needs for the homes, despite being situated in a cold Alberta location where winter temperatures can reach -33 degrees C (-27 F).

The Drake Landing Solar Community collects solar energy in a heat storage fluid through an array of solar panels on the roof of each home and covering all of the garages at the back of each home. The heated fluid is transferred to a neighborhood energy center, and then into the ground beneath an insulated layer, where the heat is stored in the earth.

Combined together, the 52 home community is able to collect and store enough energy from the sun during the summer that the ground storage temperatures reach 80 degrees C (176 F). This heat is sufficiently insulated beneath the ground that it can be drawn from throughout the winter to provide heat and hot water.

The homes in the community are moderately sized, ranging from 1,492 to 1,664 square feet, and are insulated to a level 30% higher than the average home in Canada in order to keep the energy needs low enough to work with the system. The homes are also closely located to one another. This provides a more walkable neighborhood, as well as reducing the lengths that the fluid for the solar heating system needs to travel.

Entire Neighborhood Has Shared Solar Heating

The system works in part due to the scale of the project utilizing the combined capacity of the entire community. A similar system scaled down to a single family home version would not work as efficiently simply because too much heat would be lost. But the scale of a system for 52 households makes this a feasible project.

While the technology is similar to a ground source heat pump, which relies on a relatively stable, constant temperature of the ground, the Drake Landing Community is actually storing heat throughout the summer and then relying on that banked heat during the winter.

Solar heating is a more exciting prospect than solar generation of electricity because heating is a much larger percentage of a home’s total energy use (60% for space heating, 20% for water heating, and 20% for appliances, lights, and other electrical loads).

Related articles on Green Building Elements:

Geothermal Energy and Ground Source Heat Pumps

GreenBuildingTalk: Solar Hot Water and Heating — Is it Right for You?

Traditional Neighborhood Development and LEED Go Hand in Hand

Green Communities, Part 1: New Urbanism

George Shultz was there when nuclear disarmament slipped through our fingers. Today, he says, action is even more urgent. Sarah van Gelder interviews George Shultz, former Secretary of State.

	George Shultz (second from left) meets with Ronald Reagan and other members of his Cabinet in the Oval Office, 1986. Photo by White House Photo Office

Twenty years ago, U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev came within a hair’s breadth of agreeing to phase out their stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The encounter took place at Reykjavik, Iceland, and one of the people who was there was Secretary of State George Shultz. When the proposal came up, he is reported to have said, “Let’s do it!”

Today, from his office at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, he’s back on the case. In collaboration with former Senator Sam Nunn, William Perry, who was secretary of defense under Bill Clinton, and Henry Kissinger, this veteran of the Cold War is taking on what may be the biggest threat to human security.

Sarah: Can the United States be secure without its nuclear stockpile?

Shultz: You’re going to be more secure if there are no nuclear weapons in the world, because if you achieve this goal, you won’t be risking having nuclear weapons blow up in one of our cities.

At the conferences abroad I’ve been attending, it was certainly borne in on me that the notion of a two-tiered world—where some countries can have nuclear weapons and others can’t—is getting less and less acceptable.

The Nonproliferation Treaty in Article 6 says that those who don’t have nuclear weapons will have access to nuclear power technology and they won’t try to get nuclear weapons, and those who do have nuclear weapons will phase down their importance eventually to zero. People are looking for governments to live up to that treaty.

Sarah: Is it possible to verify that nuclear weapons have been eliminated?

Shultz: That’s one of the main subjects to be worked on. The British government has volunteered to take on verification—to try to think through how you work it out.

We have the START Treaty between the United States and Russia that includes the best verification procedures of anything that’s been developed. It expires in December of 2009, so we’re suggesting that the treaty be extended so as not to lose those verification provisions.

Sarah: How would it affect our relative power in the world if nuclear weapons were eliminated?

Shultz: At a meeting in Washington, DC, about a year ago, Henry Kissinger said, “The thing that I lost sleep over, and that I agonized about more than anything else when I was in office, was what would I say if the president ever asked my advice on whether to use a nuclear weapon, knowing that a hundred thousand or maybe more would be killed, and if there were a nuclear exchange, it would be in the billions.”

Now that we know so much about these weapons and their power, they’re almost weapons that we wouldn’t use. So I think we’re better off without them.

Of course the United States has such awesome conventional power, I think probably that on the relative balance we would be well off.

Sarah: Do you think there can be nuclear energy without proliferation?

Shultz: If you get the nuclear fuel cycle under control, yes. But I listen to people talk about nuclear power plants, and they hardly ever mention the issue. I don’t think people are alert to this problem.

In terms of the nuclear fuel cycle, there is just as strong a feeling that you don’t want to have another two-tiered system, in which some countries are allowed to enrich uranium and others aren’t. I think there’s going to have to be an international regime on that.

Sarah: Why is the reaction today so different from the reaction to President Reagan’s proposal at Reykjavik to eliminate nuclear weapons?

Shultz: After Reykjavik, you may remember, the reaction was very negative. Margaret Thatcher came over, practically summoned me to the British ambassador’s residence, and she read me out: How could I possibly take part in such a discussion?

I think it has dawned on people that we’ve gone to sleep on this subject. The proliferation problems are growing, and the amount of nuclear fissile material around is large, and some of it isn’t well safeguarded. We have a terrorist phenomenon, and the non-proliferation treaty is fraying at the edges. So maybe we should do something a little different.

Sarah: You just returned from a conference in Norway on the abolition of nuclear weapons. What happened there?

Shultz: Sam Nunn and I went. Henry Kissinger and Bill Perry were not able to go. Twenty nine countries were represented—all the countries with nuclear weapons, including Israel. The people there had their doubts, but they were intrigued; they can see there is a danger—a tipping point problem.

We’re getting to the point where proliferation could get out of control. If a terrorist group gets a nuclear weapon or the fissile material from which they can make one, they aren’t getting it for deterrence. They are getting it to use it.

The Doctrine of Deterrence justified nuclear weapons during the Cold War. The deterrent impact of Mutual Assured Destruction kept an uneasy peace, although if you were involved, you knew that there were more close calls than you were comfortable with.

At the end of the Cold War, more countries were acquiring nuclear weapons, and others were aspiring to have them.

The Gulf states all want nuclear power plants, and if you enrich your own uranium—as the Iranians aspire to do—you can enrich it for a weapon. When the fuel is spent, it can be reprocessed into plutonium. If nuclear power spreads—as the people who are worried about global warming are pushing for—then the problem of the nuclear fuel cycle emerges. All of these things together give you that uneasy feeling.

Sarah: Have you had a response from the leading presidential contenders?

Shultz: I haven’t seen anything from Senator McCain. Senator Obama has made a statement supporting what we’re doing. Senator Clinton has been a little less forthcoming than Senator Obama, but has indicated interest.

I hope that I, or Henry, or someone can get a chance to talk to Senator McCain before long.

Sarah: Is there active opposition to your initiative to eliminate nuclear weapons?

Shultz: There are people who think that the idea is not a good idea and that it will never happen. Mostly, however, they say that they are in favor of the steps that we’ve identified. So we say, OK, let’s get going on the steps that we can do today that will make the world safer.

Sarah: What response have you had from the Russians to this proposal?

Shultz: No formal response. But, at our meeting in London, two former Russian foreign ministers were there, one of whom, I understand, is close to the current regime. When he finished speaking, I said, “Igor, will you let me translate what you said? It is that as far as Russia is concerned, the door is open.” He said, “That’s a fair translation. We’re ready to think about it.”

That’s as good as you can get.

Sarah: What is the first thing you would like the next president to do to move this process forward?

Shultz: I’m not trying to prescribe for the next president. We’re trying to get the building blocks ready. We’ve talked to people from some other countries, and they’re interested enough so that if the United States, working with Russia, were to take this initiative and get other people to join, it might be pretty exciting. And it might once again put us in the role of doing something that people feel good about.

There is quite a list of people—large numbers of former secretaries of state, defense, and national security advisors—who have publicly stated their support. So we’d be in a position to say to a new president, “If you decide to go this way, here are a bunch of people from both sides of the aisle who are willing to stand up behind you and applaud.”

The sun sets over solar panels in New Mexico.

The tradition of nicknaming US states has made Florida the Sunshine State and Alaska the Last Frontier. But only one has given itself a second moniker, a move that matches its bold environmental vision.

Welcome to New Mexico, the Land of Enchantment – now also known as the Clean Energy State.

Since giving his state its new nickname four years ago, governor Bill Richardson has helped create at least 37 incentive programmes promoting green power.

From utility-bill discounts to a statewide renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for electricity, New Mexico’s 2m residents are given every opportunity to weave clean energy into their daily lives.

“The RPS drives consumption of renewables within the state,” Sarah Cottrell, Richardson’s energy policy adviser, said. “We have so much potential here for wind and solar that it far exceeds the demand.”

The state’s journey to environmental leadership is even more notable because of the inaction that has persisted at the national level.

Although 25 states have approved their own RPS, a national standard has stalled in the face of resistance from traditional coal-powered utilities and their allies in Congress.

Wind and biomass are popular in New Mexico, but the desert sun that draws millions of tourists here also makes its solar power potential the second largest in America.

So it is that the Clean Energy State’s future just may lie in the south corner of Albuquerque, at the end of a dry road marked by a mile-long sculpture of a snake with jewelled eyes.

The road ends at Mesa del Sol, a 13,000-acre development area that is poised to become a hotbed of the US solar industry.

Aided by a $10m (£5m) investment from the state government, Advent Solar is already producing cutting-edge “back contact” cells at Mesa del Sol. Advent’s design places electric contacts at the rear of the solar cell panel rather than the front-loaded style common in most panels, maximising the light energy that is trapped for household use.

For now Advent focuses on exporting cells to the booming European solar market. “It’s good for the trade deficit and good for the environment,” company spokeswoman Misty Benham said.

That could change when Advent gets a new neighbour in Germany’s Schott Solar. The world No 8 in cell production, Schott plans to invest $100m in its new Albuquerque plant.

“According to both industry analysts and our projections, the market for solar energy will double over the next five years,” Schott chairman Udo Ungeheuer said as he announced the plant opening.

The prospect of two New Mexico-based solar companies vying for a foothold in the growing US market is a compelling one. “We’re beating them to the punch,” Benham, of Advent, said.

Yet again it all comes down to Washington – and the dream may slip away if Congress does not extend the solar energy tax credit this year.

Both the solar and wind credits are mired in political squabbling. Analysts warn that Schott and other companies could scale back their US investments without the certainty of a long-term tax benefit.

Still, New Mexico is working hard to earn its new nickname. Richardson formed the Western Climate Initiative last year with four other governors to focus on sustainability goals because, as Cottrell put it, “the feds aren’t acting fast enough”.

And just as Advent looks for a foothold over Schott in the New Mexico solar market, the state has found itself competing with nearby California over the pace of clean energy reforms.

Richardson’s aides have developed a “pretty entertaining rivalry with Governor [Arnold] Schwarzenegger’s people”, Cottrell said. “We believe no one’s done as much as fast as we have.”

Despite the array of energy incentives available to New Mexicans, the state’s achievement may ultimately be measured in what leaves its borders. The American southwest contains more than 250,000 square miles of land ripe for solar power generation, but the bigger challenge lies in transmitting that energy to the grid.

Barack Obama and John McCain are also working hard to win the southwest in November by emphasising renewable energy. The presidential rivals visited New Mexico within a week of each other last month, and Obama is heading to Las Vegas today for a town hall meeting to promote his clean-power plans.

With that in mind, New Mexico is taking steps toward the export of clean power, becoming the first US state to form a renewable energy transmission authority (Reta) that provides financing for new high-voltage lines and towers. (Texas, Nevada, and California have similar transmission initiatives.)

Transmission is not cheap - the average 345-kV power line costs $1.5m per mile to lay, according to the chief of New Mexico’s Reta, former BP executive Lisa Szot. But it is one area where states can make progress.

“States need to be involved in transmission,” Szot said. “The federal government isn’t involved in permitting and siting [of new power lines]. That even goes down to the county level.”

The process of building transmission infrastructure in New Mexico is a free-market conservative’s dream: Szot fields ambitious proposals from clean energy firms and offers financing mechanisms, chiefly tax-exempt bonds, to those with the best project ideas.

Making the leap from New Mexico’s homegrown green movement to a thriving solar power export market may be as simple as electing a Democratic president in November. Obama has put renewables at the top of his agenda, and the companies such as Advent are comfortable putting down roots in the Clean Energy State.

“The fact that [New Mexico officials] stood up and fought for us” convinced Advent to choose Mesa del Sol, Benham said. “They’re very aware of renewables here.”

Elana Schor in Albuquerque guardian.co.uk

Sure, it’s easy enough for one person to attempt energy self-sufficiency: put a solar panel on your roof, run your car on biodiesel, and you’re halfway there. But how easy is it for an entire town to become self-sufficient?

That’s the question that Reynolds, Indiana has been trying to answer for the past 3 years. In 2005, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels declared the town to be BioTown, USA—a model of energy self-sufficiency for the state.

The town was chosen mainly because of its small size (pop. 547), excellent rail and road access, and proximity to organic waste (within 15 miles of more than 150,000 hogs). According to the BioTown website, the finished project will showcase efficient methods of converting biomass into energy, use bioenergy to fuel homes and businesses throughout the town, promote alternative energies across the United States, and show that agricultural energy is safe, reliable, and consistent.

These are certainly some lofty goals for such a tiny town, and progress on the project has been slow. In fact, external signs of energy independence in Reynolds have been few and far between. So where does the project stand now?

As of June 9th, the White County Area Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a re-zoning to allow construction of a methane gas-producing digester. This would use animal and human waste to create methane, which would power local homes and businesses.

However, there are still many hoops for the town to jump through before achieving energy independence. While the proposed methane digester will be useful, it may not be enough. And even if it is, the White County Commissioners still need to ultimately decide whether to approve the re-zoning request.

Reynolds is a prime example of why communities need to prepare for energy crises far in advance. If it takes a prominent project such as BioTown, USA nearly 5 years to achieve their goal—with a population of 547—how long will it take grassroots initiatives in larger towns and cities?

Written by Ariel Schwartz originally published at Ecolocalizer

There is a growing green boom in the idea of generating “green collar” jobs. Certainly we have reported on advantages of going greener in the marketplace, but what if everyone had access to the skills required to make a more sustainable imprint through a New Deal like workforce, only greener. Even my home town of Seattle will be hosting a conference at the University of Washington with keynote speaker Governor Christine Gregoire on the how to stimulate the economy of the the “emerald city,” by investing in cleaner more efficient technology, securing jobs in the community while making us less dependent on Big Oil and other non-renewables. What if if the green baton can be passed from city to city, in a national effort to make a more sensible and sustainable way to encourage equal job opportunity for all income levels, while stimulating the economy and sustaining the environment for generations to come.This may be worth considering a deal to vote on.

Since we reported on the idea in last year’s Earth Day issue, “green collar” jobs, have generated quite the buzz. After cycling through the mainstream media and the blogosphere, the term is now common parlance among business leaders and community organizers who want to bring about a New Green Deal. It even got some play during the presidential campaign, with contenders on both sides of the aisle citing it as a way to end dependency on foreign oil, protect natural resources and reduce carbon emissions.

Green for All, a new advocacy group out of Oakland, CA, is the organization driving the discussion. According to director and environmental visionary Van Jones (author of last Earth Day’s cover story), green collar workers are the labor force of the future — they’ll be the ones weatherizing buildings, installing solar panels, servicing electric vehicles and building green rooftops. They’ll be the local union members getting livable wages in positions that can’t be outsourced to India. And if Green for All succeeds, this first generation of workers will come from today’s impoverished inner cities. Their message is that the legacy of American inequality can be reversed through environmental innovation. “The green economy will simultaneously address our economic, ecological and moral crises,” said Jones at a recent conference of green builders.

While serving as director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Jones, along with a coalition of groups including the A pollo Alliance and the Center for American Progress, lobbied congress and the Oakland City Council to establish a green jobs corps. Their efforts paid off. Last summer’s massive federal energy bill included the Green Jobs Act providing $125 million to train veterans, formerly incarcerated workers, at-risk youth and the urban poor for clean-tech occupations. Now Jones and his new organization need to hold Washington to its promise. Field director Jeremy Hays said that the Green Jobs Act has yet to be cemented into the 2009 federal budget. “We’re going to keep on top of them until congress gives us a clear signal of an actual allocation.”

But federal procrastination hasn’t deterred the Green for All vision. Now that one act has passed, they’re pressing lawmakers to fund another $1 billion in national green jobs training by 2012 that will bring 250,000 workers out of poverty and boost green industries. In preparation, they’re building a national network of green entrepreneurs, educators, union workers and government officials who are sharing best practices and getting technical assistance for the job training programs.

Since opening in March, Green for All has been responding to a deluge of interest. “One minute we plugged in the fax machine,” said Hays, “and the next minute we’re standing in a pile of messages from community leaders and activists all wanting to work with us.”

Early this month, Green for All is putting on “ The Dream Reborn,” a conference in Memphis commemorating the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination. One of the conference’s goals is to facilitate partnerships between labor, activists and communities of color. “The green economy is a complicated puzzle,” remarked Hays. “Some people are banging away on job creation strategies and others are doing training programs, so we want to develop ways for people to talk to each other and create a community of practice that brings the green economy to the next level.”

When the federal funds become available next year, Green for All will help manage a competitive grant process to determine allocations to various training programs. To stay informed and find out how you can get involved, visit greenforall.org .

By: Jessica Kraft and originally published

Wouldn’t it be great to pack-up the car or the SUV for a weekend excursion without fretting over the cost of fuel? Or take that road trip you and your friends keep talking about? All with no concern about pumping all of your hard-earned cash into the gas tank. Heck, it would be great just to drive around town without that concern. Here’s how you can do it.

1. Commitment

This will not happen overnight. Nor will it work if you just want something for nothing. There are some up-front costs, but more importantly, it’s the dedication of your time and energy that puts the money back in your pocket. You’re going to give up the quick convenience of the express station, so you have to truly believe in the value of what you’re doing. But once you make this determination, the hardest part is already done.

2. The technology

The technology has existed for almost 100 years. Rudolf Diesel designed his engine to run on corn oil that he had collected on his Iowa farm. He wanted a more efficient way to run his farm machinery because gasoline had reached a staggering $0.05 per gallon! Look it up yourself - the diesel engine was intentionally designed to operate on vegetable oil, not toxic petroleum byproducts. And that’s all you’re going to do.

3. Sourcing your vegetable oil.

In your local supermarket, vegetable oil retails for about $10/gallon, almost three times as expensive as regular unleaded gasoline these days. You want free vegetable oil. Well, every restaurant and probably most bars in your community are currently paying somebody else to come and haul away their waste vegetable oil from the fry-o-laters.

That’s your source. Develop a relationship with the manager or owner of local establishments. Tell him or her that you’re interested in collecting their waste vegetable oil. Offer to do it for free.

Make sure they use NON-HYDROGENATED oil. You do not want that creamy based oil. You may have to supply them with a collection barrel, and you want to make sure the manager can depend on you to collect at regular intervals so he doesn’t have to worry about it.

4. Processing the oil.

The oil that you collect is not ready to burn. It must be heated and filtered. You will need a couple of barrels’ worth of space in a garage or basement where you can set-up your little processing station. If you don’t have the space, consider getting a co-op going with friends or other people in your community who do.

In any case, the system is not complicated, it just requires a little bit of money to set-up and then a regular bit of attention to generate usable oil. There are many different methods for this process, but they all essentially involve heating the oil in one tank, then pumping it through some filtration device to a second tank.

The whole point is to remove any water and particles that have collected in the oil during use. Lots of people have posted their processing plants on YouTube or other veggie forums such as Fryer to Fuel. There is not ONE way to do it, and you will have to devise the best way for you to do it with regard to your space, time, and budget.

5. Lining up your vehicle.

Now you need the vehicle to utilize all of this wonderful, free oil. Hopefully you aren’t terribly attached to whatever it is that you’re driving now. The decision to run on veggie oil limits the type of vehicle you can drive because only certain models are produced with a diesel engine.

The good news is that these models are quite nice. Volkswagen has offered diesel versions of the Golf and the Jetta for years, and the list now includes the Passat. And Mercedes has several sedan models and even a wagon with the available diesel. And fortunately for the checkbook, you don’t want a new one anyway. The older models make better conversion candidates because the engine is less complicated. A little bit of research (check greasecar)will turn-up a car you like that fits your budget.

Maybe you’ll decide that, since you’re going to be driving for free anyway, you might as well drive the biggest, baddest rig you can find. The Big 3 American auto manufacturers produce diesel powered trucks and SUVs that also make excellent conversion candidates. Again, the slightly older models offer a little more ease of conversion. The bottom line is, you should be able to find a ride that makes you happy.

6. Conversion

Conversion kit. Photo by Cody Simms.

Now you have to tweak the fuel system to accommodate your veggie oil. The major issue is temperature. There are all kinds of conversion kits for sale from different companies on the internet. They can cost as much as $4000.00. And they all insist that if you can read instructions you can install the kit yourself.

Or you can go to one of their authorized installers and drop another G for them to do it for you. The money saves you the hassle of doing it yourself and buys you peace of mind and presumably customer service, should a problem arise.

The truth is that most of these kits are just a compilation of parts and pieces - hoses, gauges, valves - that you can buy cheaper from a direct source. And if you or someone you know has any degree of comfort around an engine, then yes, you can convert your car yourself. Just research. Again, there are lots of community forums about converting to veggie oil, and even a bunch of videos on uTube. It’s the commitment issue again. Understanding how the process works will give you the ability to address it.

7. Notes on cost

Nothing is truly free. Assuming that you trade your current vehicle for one of equal value, the start-up cost for your alternative fuel program, including your processing plant and the conversion, will likely top $3000.00 even if you do it all yourself.

Again, a co-op is a good idea: you can gather people you trust to help curb the initial cost of the plant and to share collection duties and split time actually processing the oil.

If you spend $50/week on fuel, it will take one year and two months for your program to pay for itself. And of course there’s your time to collect and process the oil, plus the bit of energy needed to operate the plant. Be sure to find out if your state has an alternative fuel road tax provision on the books too, so you can jump that hurdle.

And thereafter you’re driving for free! And in the meantime that’s 50 bucks each week to take your girl out to dinner or contribute to your IRA or whatever. Plus it’s better for the environment, recycling oil and no carbon emissions. And when you want to take that trip, the WVO Network, a nationwide community of veg-heads, will propel you around the country.

8. Drive!

This might all seem like too big a deal. Well, putting several thousand dollars a year back in your pocket is a big deal. Forgetting the major cost of road travel is a big deal. Conserving resources and protecting the environment is a big deal.

Converting to veg allows you to contribute to softening a global crisis and improves your personal bottom line significantly over the long term. The first time you flip that switch and you’re running on straight veg, the headaches and expense of converting blow right out the tailpipe!

Written by Brad Whipple :Visit Travelors Notebook

From: EcoGeek

We know solar jobs are in demand – one of the more practically exciting pieces of evidence of the booming alternative energy industries – and Georgians, or anyone willing to move to the Peach state, are going to get some.

Suniva will build its first manufacturing plant in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Suniva is a small solar company doing well in creating efficient solar cells that don’t cost an arm and a green thumb to make. Founder of Suniva and Georgian, Ajeet Rohatgi, says they’re looking to start with a solar production capacity of 32 MW and can create about 100 jobs, neither of which are numbers to sneeze at. It’s a pretty fair start for a small, new company, especially when they’re looking at bringing in $10 million in revenues this year along, and expect to be profitable next year with $100 million in sales. For their investors, who put $50 million into the pot to get Suniva’s manufacturing plant going, are probably pretty happy with the idea.

So why Georgia? Sentimentality. Well, that, and business sense. The company wants to stick close to Georgia Tech, which along with being a hotbed of cool ideas, is where Rohatgi founded the company, and getting the tech from the university labs to the plant is easy when you’re close. Other states are feeling a little jealous, and are actively pursuing Suniva opening additional plants on their turf. They include New Mexico, MassachusettsFlorida, Arizona and Nevada. A couple of those states could really use the new jobs and revenue, considering how hard they’re being hit by the current economy. So go west, young Suniva, and north and a little more south, and be fruitful and multiply! Wherever Suniva decides to set down foundations, we’ll be happy to see them simultaneously increase employees in the green job sector and find us better alternative power.

Via Earth2tech

In the last oil crisis of the ’70’s, Alternet says that America pulled together and reduced their driving speeds across the country to 55 MPH to save fuel. However they continue with “Fundamental rights were at stake. How dare the government infringe on the “flow of commerce” and my right to declare my independence with the speedometer of my automobile (not to mention odometer). By the late 80s, Americans were driving gas-guzzling Jimmys, Jeeps, Blazers and Broncos 75 mph through the light truck loop-hole in the CAFE standards. Fifty-five became a number from America’s past.” Is it time to deal with this climate and oil crisis and return to 55?

Article originally from TreeHugger

Or check out this video of a driver who decided to go 55MPH to find out he was just pissing people off. Should we return to the 55 MPH law? Or instead of waiting, should we strive to just go 55?

Driving 55 MPH: Saving Gas and Pissing People Off

I hate my lawn. I’ve seriously considered ripping the whole thing out to expand my veggie garden. I hate it for a couple of reasons. First, it requires water, a lot of it, to keep it green. But in California where I haven’t seen rain since February, that’s not exactly practical…or cheap. And secondly, it requires mowing, which means cranking up my old gas-powered lawn mower, which wracks me with guilt every time I use it. So, for now, I give it neither. It’s a brown mess.

Thanks to Hacknmod tracking down three ways to convert gas lawn mowers to solar and electric, however, I can solve at least the lawn-mower issue. A tidy brown plot is in my future. It also solves another problem – I’m an early bird and can feel the glaring eyes from neighbors’ windows when I crank up my mower at 7 AM on a Sunday. Now, I can mow as soon as the sun comes up for all they care!

Convert your gas mower to a solar electric unit with an electric motor, battery, and solar unit.

Stick a solar panel on your electric mower for free energy.

Or charge your battery with a separate solar unit.

These could make for some fun summer projects! And if you’re the social type, you could even learn how to do this and hold a workshop in your neighborhood or community. Then your neighbors won’t feel the glare of your evil eye when they crank up their loud, gassy mowers.

Of course, if you aren’t in to mods or DIY craftiness, then you can check out some pre-built electric mowers or, to please your tech-loving heart, go with a hover mower.

Oh, and don’t forget - if you need to change the oil, there’s always cow-fat motor oil.

Written by Jaymi Heimbuch and originally posted at EcoGeek

The first large-scale ocean-based wind power project is set for beginning research.

StatoilHydro announced plans to test offshore wind turbines, starting with a 2.3-megawatt turbine measuring 65 meters high, buoyed and tied down by three anchors. While not the only ocean-bound wind turbine project in the works, this new project, called Hywind, will launch in 2009 off the coast of Norway and is particularly unique because of how far off shore the turbines can be placed. Because they float instead of being tied to the ocean floor, they’re operable in depths up to a whopping 700 meters. And when the average ocean depth off Norway is about 1,450 meters, this means they can go way, way off-shore.

Issues to be analyzed include the cost of getting the power generated back to landlubber users, its efficiency at generating power while being knocked around in waves and storms, and the ability to safely perform maintenance on the units. This research will take a good chunk of time before offshore wind farms are a reality, or even practical. Not mentioned in the article but also important to research is any impact on marine life, especially sea birds, that not only a single unit but an entire fleet of wind turbines may have.

This is an interesting alternative to land-based wind farms, which seem to be getting bigger and bigger. Ocean-based wind farms will take out some of the ugly factor, though they present more obvious technical issues than land-based turbines. Yet, they may be more practical for large-scale power creation for big cities than flying wind power generators, depending on how the testing goes.

The undertaking is huge, but I am optimistic that utilizing our vast ocean space for generating sustainable power is in the near future. It may even be possible to combine water-generated power with the wind-generated power, maximizing efficiency of the resources invested in creating the turbines.

Meanwhile, I would love to see bright painted letters donning the first turbine “Ishmael”.

Written by: Jaymi Heimbuch and originally published at EcoGeek