I found this essay in High Country News (an excellent publication, but subscription only. Go get one, even if you live in the east). I found it moving, and also very interesting. The author, Geneen Marie Haugen, describes a trip to facilitate a nature-based program at a retreat in Holland.

When my colleagues and I explored the retreat center’s surrounding “nature,” I noticed that the trees, though sizable, grew in orchard-straight rows. We wandered off the wide trails periodically and found, in every direction, another well-traveled path no more than 100 yards away.
[snip]
Getting lost was impossible. True solitude was impossible. As one who has lived in the American West for a lifetime, I was unprepared for the abrupt, heart-piercing realization that this was the state of the wild in Holland, if not in most of Europe.
There were no stands of primeval forest; there were no creatures larger than deer, none fiercer than fox gay men having oral sex with dog. Nothing of the original wild remained. Nothing.
I couldn’t fathom how the Netherlanders could bear the magnitude of this loss.
[snip]
I felt a rush of unexpected gratitude for the land of my origin — tremendous, shivering gratitude to be utterly formed and informed by the still-wild terrain of the North American continent.
Despite the best efforts of industry, the momentum to preserve — even restore — wild American habitat has not been defeated.
[snip]
The damage human beings have inflicted on natural systems is, of course, incalculable, and even science-based “management” has produced disasters.
But the stunning fact that Americans have preserved habitat at all is evidence of an emerging ecological vision. If the United States has a gift for the world, it’s not our gift for the absurd consumer confidence index, not pre-emptive invasion, not even a limping democracy. It is a dream of collaboration with Earth, rooted in tundra, tangled forests, hissing geysers, stone deserts. It is a vision as radically wild now as it was in 1862, when Thoreau famously wrote: “In wildness is the preservation of the world horse farm sex.”
[snip]
On the North American continent, enough wildness remains to guide our fledgling discovery of how human purpose can be coherent with natural systems — a vision no less necessary for our common future than a dream of freedom.

I’m so used to condemning US management of its resources that it’s almost shocking to me to realize the truth in what she says – we were able to save something. Recognizing that doesn’t negate the need to fight like hell to maintain (and dare we hope, expand?) the intact or semi-intact ecosystems we have, and to save species and habitat and just plain old open space. Europe came hundreds of years too late to conservation to protect anything not already overrun by humans. I’m not saying that protected lands in the US are pristine – most of them were used for centuries by Native Americans before Europeans stole them. But we got conservation in time to set aside some of our crown jewels in a relatively natural state. All in all, it makes me want to fight harder for the protected lands we have here, realizing how special they are. At the same time, it makes me want to protect more in places that still have magnificent, intact ecosystems, like Alaska or the Amazon. But here we run into a problem: Who are we to tell other countries what to do with their land? It’s fairly clear that the American model of conservation (keep people out) won’t work in most other parts of the world. So we need new ways to protect ecosystems and people beastiality dating. But I don’t want to get into that whole can of worms.

What I really want to say is this:

Go outside.

Look at the sky, the earth, the trees.

Think of your favorite wilderness.

Remember that everything we love can be saved.

Like most of his speeches, Bush’s State of the Union address was full of sweeping generalities and a lack of details. Nothing too special about this one, but I did find this little gem amusing:

To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy.

Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid and more production here at home, including safe, clean nuclear energy.

Well, I certainly agree with the first part. A serious overhaul of our national energy policy is overdue, and we need to immediately begin investing in the energy technologies of the future. But as for that Republican energy plan, it doesn’t quite accomplish the lofty goals Bush laid out in his speech.

During the debate on the bill, Sen. Ron Wyden called it “a hodgepodge of subsidies for the politically well-connected.” That’s a bold statement, but Bush’s energy bill managed to live up to it. The bill would have provided $23 billion in new tax breaks, with two thirds going to the fossil fuel industries. On paper, the bill would provide $5 billion to renewable energy, hence Bush’s noble promotion of the bill as a boon for the environment. But this is misleading, as a good chunk of the five billion goes to the production of ethanol, which is probably the most wasteful farce in government spending today. A full list of the problems with Bush’s energy bill can be found here.

Even if the $5 billion were legitimate, it is still outweighed by the $15.5 billion going to the oil, gas, and coal industries. And that’s on top of the subsidies already given to the fossils fuels industry. And to really make me angry, the government often includes nuclear power as part of its “green” investments, with nuclear power receiving the majority of available funding. So the federal government is still actively encouraging Americans to choose traditional energy source over renewable energy sources. Not a very effective way of promoting the energy sources of the future.

But let’s imagine, for a minute, that we live in an alternate world, one where our representatives actually created legislation that was in the best long-term interest of our country daughter fucking horses. What would a progressive energy plan look like in such a scenario?

Well, let us assume for the moment that we all agreed on the necessity of ending our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels. I will put that debate aside for another day. For now, let me just focus on what it would take to actively promote the use of renewable energy in this country. While wind power in particular is growing rapidly, renewable energy still makes up a tiny percentage of overall energy use. Primarily, this is a factor of price, as renewable technologies are still not cheap enough to compete with traditional energy sources.

Wind power, now priced at 4-6 cents/kwh, has fallen in price to the point where it is competitive in many areas of the country. Solar power, on the other hand, at 36 cents/kwh, is still too expensive, which is unfortunate, as I am more excited about solar power than any other renewable energy source. It is the only energy source that offers the potential of a completely decentralized energy distribution system, in addition to its environmental benefits. Take the above numbers with a grain of salt, as rates can vary widely for alternative energy sources, depending on location, technology, etc. But they’re in the ballpark, at least. So what can be done to lower the price of solar panels, in order to make it more competitive with other sources? By the way, I would have included rates for traditional energy sources, but could not find the necessary data at the Energy Information Administration. I’ll update this post once I can find the information.

Well, there are efforts out there to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency at the federal level, such as the Apollo Alliance, which advocates for subsidies and tax breaks to foster the growth of renewable energy. However, much of their plan consists of subsidies that go directly to industry, which I do not believe to be a very effective method at lowering the price of renewable energy. It’s just more corporate welfare, a concept that makes me twitch violently whenever I hear of it. Frankly, I think it would be best to simply end all energy subsidies to industry, renewable or traditional. As stated above, the fossil fuels industry receives far more in subsidies than renewable energy sources, so overall this would be a boon to the growth in renewable energy.

So I would rather address the problem in two ways. First, any tax breaks should be aimed at the consumer, not the producer, of renewable energy. This would directly lower the price of all renewable energy sources, thus spurring demand how can i get my girlfriend to have sex with a dog. If demand goes up, companies will fill the void of producing renewable energy, whereas industry subsidies have no guarantee of creating additional demand or lowering price. Now, some of this is already being done at the state level, most notably in California, where solar panels have been aggressively promoted through tax breaks to consumers. But action at the federal level could easily swamp any state effort, and create a real market for renewable energy. Just look at the success of the wind production tax credit, which helps lower the cost of wind power by 1.8 cents/kwh.

The other piece of the puzzle lies in additional research, to create more efficient and cheaper methods of harnessing renewable energy. Like any product, the laws of supply and demand determine the price of solar panels. Well, in a technical sense, the supply of solar energy, like any renewable source, is limitless. Unlike traditional sources of energy, such as oil, where supply is a very real concern, the only obstacle to cheap renewable energy is the effectiveness of the technology used to supply the energy. Which is good news, actually, because throughout the history of mankind, any given technology has always both fallen in price and increased in effectiveness. All it takes is more research, which can be most easily accomplished through funding at the federal level.

I have no doubt that with more research, photovoltaic cells can become as cheap as computer chips. Keep in mind that while today’s prices for solar energy are about 10 times as high as prices for fossil fuels, a decade ago that ratio was 50 to 1. Once prices for renewable energy become competitive with fossil fuels, I fully expect demand to explode, leading to a viable market for renewable energy. And as demand rises, more companies will seek to satisfy that demand, leading to further breakthroughs in design and price. Which will lead to further growth, etc. Fun for the whole family.

Ok, back to reality. Clearly there will be no such plan at the federal level, at least not for several years. But I am still optimistic and confident of the future, for even without support from the government, prices will continue to fall for renewable energy sources, as research continues to produce cheaper and more effective technologies xxx paola. Over the long-term, prices for fossil fuels, particularly oil, will be constrained by dwindling supplies. Renewable energy, on the other hand, will only be constrained by technology. Eventually, I think a completely decentralized energy system will be developed, through improvements in solar panels and gains in energy efficiency. Which, of course, would mean no more concentration of energy production, and no need for utility companies. What a bright future indeed.

Decisions by the EU are generally ignored in this country, except when they can be portrayed as another sign of European “weakness”. Yet a little known regulatory decision by the EU could have a profound global impact on corporate behavior and the use of toxic chemicals, not only in Europe but also in the United States. The new regulation is REACH, or Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals. Basically, REACH would require companies to test their chemicals for safety before release to the public, and to register chemical products with the appropriate EU regulatory body.

Doesn’t sound all that radical, does it? Yet this represents a fundamental shift in how chemicals are brought to the public. Most Americans may not realize it, but we are all guinea pigs for chemical products. The vast majority of the 30,000 plus chemicals on the market have never been tested for safety concerns, much less their long-term impact on human beings. The Nation says that,

The REACH directive represents an upheaval in the basic philosophy of chemical regulation, flipping the American presumption of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head by placing the burden of proof on manufacturers to prove chemicals are safe–what is known as the “precautionary principle.” REACH adds extra bite with a requirement that toxicity data be posted publicly on the new agency’s website. Thus, test results that were once tightly held by chemical companies will suddenly be available to citizens and regulators across the globe.

Not only will the new regulation prevent dangerous new chemicals from reaching the market, it will also seek to remove from the market any current chemicals that are deemed to be toxic or hazardous to human health. This could affect up to 1,400 chemicals, according to the above article k9 bestiality. Needless to say, this has the U.S. chemical industry worried, and they’re fighting back:

documents indicate that various agencies within the U.S. government have conspired with chemical companies and chemical trade organizations to derail the scope of REACH. According to the documents, U.S. government lobbying on behalf of industry included a cable in April 2003 from then Secretary of State Colin Powell to diplomatic posts in the EU that provided Рюэtalking ПointsРющ for U.S. government officials to use when speaking with their European counterparts. The arguments were notably similar in language to themes developed by industry at the request of a U.S dog fucking girl. trade official, charges Waxman.

The chemical industry is concerned not only because the EU is considering such a sweeping new regulation, but also because the EU has become powerful enough to impact global trade. Simply due to its size, the EU will impact the kinds of chemicals that come to market. As the EU has an economy similar in size to the U.S., it will become difficult for the $500 billion chemical industry to develop one set of products for Europe and another set for the U.S. Once REACH is in place, citizens around the world will be able to access detailed information on the safety of chemical products, and use that information to force their own governments to pass similar laws. California has already indicated its desire to enact regulations similar to REACH, and other governments are sure to follow suit.

So this may be a new development for political activists in the U.S., that decisions in Europe can affect health and environmental standards around the world how can a male have sex with a female dog. But considering the current political climate in America, this comes as welcome news. Let’s hope that the EU continues to pursue aggressive environmental legislation, and that corporate lobbyists do not succeed in weakening such legislation the way they have in the U.S.

Oil folks not interested in drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
The major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. Even the plan’s most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America’s needs.[…]

How much oil lies beneath the wilderness where the administration wants to permit drilling? Advocates cite a 1998 government study that estimated the part of the refuge proposed for drilling might hold 10 billion barrels of oil. But only one test well has been drilled, in the 1980’s, and its results are one of the industry’s most closely guarded secrets.

A Bush adviser says the major oil companies have a dimmer view of the refuge’s prospects than the administration does. “If the government gave them the leases for free they wouldn’t take them,” said the adviser, who would speak only anonymously because of his position pony sex with woman. “No oil company really cares about ANWR,” the adviser said.
Link

New project to restore the Aral Sea
Desiccation has been eating at the Aral Sea for 30 years, turning a bountiful source of fish into a salty, inhospitable body of water. The sea shrank by 75% and split into two parts joined by an isthmus: the Small Aral in the north, which includes Akespe, and the Big Aral in the south.[…]

The World Bank agreed to finance a […] dike [and] major works aimed at doubling the flow of the Syr Darya, the main river that feeds into the Small Aral. The $85 million project, now under way, “is the biggest attempt to repair a damaged lake that we’ve seen so far,” says Philip Micklin, an Aral Sea specialist at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo. The new dike and sluice are to be completed this summer male fucking dog. Within 3 years, the Small Aral is expected to rise at least 3 meters and cover about 1000 square kilometers of now-dry former seabed, extending its surface by 25%.

The water’s rise is also expected to increase rainfall, improve pastureland, and cut down on dust storms. Fish and other freshwater aquatic life forms that retreated into the Syr Darya delta when the sea became too salty are expected to return, perhaps including the commercially valuable caviar-yielding ship sturgeon.
Link (subscription required)

Brazil promises to reduce deforestation
Destruction of Brazil’s Amazon rain forest will slow down in 2005 after the murder of a U.S. nun prompted the government to launch an unprecedented crackdown on illegal loggers and ranchers, the head of Brazil’s environment agency said on Monday woman wants dog to fuck.[…]

“This is the turning point,” said Luiz Fernando Krieger Merico, interim president of Brazil’s environmental agency IBAMA, told Reuters in an interview. “There will be a noticeable fall (in deforestation) between 2004 and 2005…this decline will be progressive from now on,” Krieger said.
Link

Turtle sanctuary grows from wreckage of tsunami
Conservationists want to turn a popular Malaysian beach hit by the tsunami into a protected nesting area for endangered sea turtles, which hatched there for the first time in over a decade - probably because of a drop-off in tourists after the disaster.

More than 30 baby Olive Ridley turtles were found Feb. 16 crawling on Tanjung Bungah beach, a popular stretch of resorts and seaside condominiums on northwestern Penang island, said Mashhor Mansor, a professor of biological sciences in the Malaysian University of Science. “Marine turtles are very sensitive to human disturbances, so we want this place to be a sanctuary to let nature take its course,” Mashhor said horse sex mare.
Link

Renewable energy: big in Germany
Germany’s wind power expansion pushed renewable energy’s share in overall electricity use up by nearly a fifth last year, official data showed on Tuesday.

Wind, hydro and other renewable plants produced a total of 56 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity or 9.3 percent of power consumed in Germany in 2004, the environment ministry and renewable energy groups said in separate statements. This was up compared to a 7.9 percent share in 2003.
Link

The uplifting quote of the week

If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.
- Henry David Thoreau, Walden