<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>Save and Conserve</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1</id>
    <link rel="service.post" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1" title="Save and Conserve" />
    <updated>2008-07-17T19:27:35Z</updated>
    <subtitle>let&apos;s kill consumption before consumption kills us</subtitle>
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.0</generator>
 

<entry>
    <title>The Pope Gets It</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/07/the_pope_gets_it.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=173" title="The Pope Gets It" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.173</id>
    
    <published>2008-07-17T19:27:39Z</published>
    <updated>2008-07-17T19:27:35Z</updated>
    
    <summary></summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Conserve Energy" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3188/2667727476_b2b5681123_m.jpg" align="right"><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25706062/">From MSNBC</a>:</p>

<blockquote>SYDNEY, Australia - Pope Benedict XVI said Thursday the world's natural resources were being squandered by "insatiable" consumption and urged people to care more for the environment.</blockquote>

<p>I liked Pope Benedict a lot even before I knew he was an enviro-champion. The Pope is so best. Let's hear how he thinks we should counter "insatiable consumption". Seriously, I'd like to hear his point of view.</p>

<p>As for the people who think the Pope is an enviro-hypocrite because he flies around the world in a private plane & rides around in a gas hog (Popemobile), come on! Give the guy a break. He's the Pope!</p>

<p><a href="http://flickr.com/photos/sam_herd/2667727476/sizes/s/"><small><em>Image</a> provided by Flickr user <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/sam_herd/">sam herd</a> under Creative Commons license</small></em></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Amtrak Funding &amp; Privatization</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/07/amtrak_funding_privatization.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=172" title="Amtrak Funding &amp; Privatization" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.172</id>
    
    <published>2008-07-15T19:56:30Z</published>
    <updated>2008-07-15T20:06:19Z</updated>
    
    <summary></summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Railroads" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1244/541240098_38603c81a2_m.jpg" align="right">The Bush administration has long sought to <a href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/02/amtrak_attacked_by_bush_admin_again.html">neuter Amtrak</a> over the years by slashing funding. Pretty typical stuff from a mis-guided administration. Just as the country desperately needs more rail & people become open to the notion of using rail to get around, let's apply a final KO to our passenger rail system, barely clinging to the ropes. Makes perfect sense.</p>

<p>The good news is that a Democratically controlled Congress has seen the value of public passenger rail & has protected Amtrak's budget allocation.</p>

<p>Now, as this <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14mon2.html">NYTimes editorial</a> points out, merely protecting the "woefully inadequate" budget number is clearly not enough, but it's a step in the right direction.</p>

<p>There is a problem, however. Bush has the veto. In order to negate the potential veto, we learn:</p>

<blockquote>To get a big enough vote to override a threatened veto by President Bush, the House leadership obliged the worst instincts of Republicans. It included a measure requiring the government to seek proposals from private companies to construct a high-speed rail service between New York and Washington.</blockquote>

<p>The privatization of everything might end up being the most damaging legacy of the Bush years, which is really saying something when you consider the list of failures. I'm currently reading <a href="www.amazon.com/Blackwater-Rise-Worlds-Powerful-Mercenary/dp/1560259795?tag=saveandconser-20"><em>Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army</em></a>, which exposes how the Bush administration has funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to private security firms (aka mercenaries). It's a stunning & startling eye-opener to say the least. Blackwater employees operate in a nebulous zone where there are zero legal repurcussions for their actions. Plus, the amount of waste in terms of money is horrifying. When you make war profitable & you invite in private corporations to enjoy the spoils of war, you create a real need for more war. Seriously, check out the book. It's quite a read.</p>

<p>Privatization might not help you win a war, but it is a hell of a way to generate profits. So why not privatize passenger rail, too? Well, I think the Blackwater escapade can teach us something about why not. Companies will cut every corner available in order to maximize profit. Do you really think a private company would do a better job with a high-speed electric rail line in the northeast corridor? As the Times points out, the cost to purchase right of ways alone makes the idea infeasible.</p>

<p>Much better would be to follow the European model:</p>

<blockquote>Where passenger rail works best, as it does in Europe, it is treated like the critical service it is and is publicly financed, like the highways.</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. This is mission critical stuff. We can't afford to farm this job out to private contractors who will not have the public's interest at the top of the list. This is too important. We the people need to own this. Electric rail is key to our future energy policy. Let's hope the Congress does the right thing & let's pray Bush doesn't veto.</p>

<p><a href="http://flickr.com/photos/scottash/541240098/sizes/s/"><small><em>Image</a> provided by Flickr user <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/scottash/">ashman 88</a> under Creative Commons license</small></em></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>The Pickens (Energy) Plan</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/07/the_pickens_energy_plan.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=171" title="The Pickens (Energy) Plan" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.171</id>
    
    <published>2008-07-09T15:46:53Z</published>
    <updated>2008-07-09T15:46:34Z</updated>
    
    <summary>T. Boone Pickens recently presented his energy plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Read more about how he plans to use wind power to get us off oil.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Geopolitics" />
    
        <category term="Wind Power" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>I've been reading about the oil dependency problem in the US for at least 3 years, and I don't often find new ground being covered when I read websites & the news & watch cable. That's why I am so intrigued by the <a href="http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/">Pickens Plan</a>.</p>

<p>Boone Pickens is a legendary oil man who has made billions & lost hundreds of millions in the oil business over his lifetime. He is currently throwing his weight behind wind energy, investing huge amounts in wind farms in Texas. This is a lifelong oil man putting his money into renewable energy. That should show you right there that the US can't drill its way out of the current oil crisis.</p>

<p>No, we need something more radical than additional drilling or emergency releases from the SPR. Pickens has a novel idea that seems to fit the bill. He wants to increase the amount of electricity produced from wind dramatically. A huge increase in wind energy will free up the natural gas supply to be used as a transportation fuel, taking some of the pressure off of oil imports (dependency). If you no longer need the gas to run power plants, you can use the resource to run cars.</p>

<p>Interesting idea. The <a href="http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/">Pickens Plan</a> website has more info & I would recommend checking it out. I know some will say the notion of using natural gas to power our cars is not really a fix. However, it would reduce our imports of oil & potentially buy us more time to bridge the gap over to a new way of doing things & a new way of running daily life.</p>

<p>As Pickens says in the video on his site, we just can't afford to transfer $700 billion each year to foreign governments & expect our economy to work well for us. We need to start changing immediately. Pickens seems like the type of individual that the renewable industry has been looking for to spearhead change. He's well known in financial & political realms. He has a pantload of money to work with (just watch his slick ads & website). He is well-respected. I wonder if he can make this happen & get the Congress on board.</p>

<p>Since <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/washington/09cong.html">Congress appears to be ready to finally do something</a> (anything), this is looking pretty interesting.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>$100 Fill-ups: Wheels That Break the Bank</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/07/wheels_that_break_the_bank.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=170" title="$100 Fill-ups: Wheels That Break the Bank" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.170</id>
    
    <published>2008-07-07T02:26:09Z</published>
    <updated>2008-07-07T02:26:12Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Big SUVs can cost more than $100 to fill up the tank in July 2008. This page has a list of these budget-busters.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Money" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Per the New York Times, here follows a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/business/06tank.html">list of cars</a> that cost $100 to fill up, as of July 2008:</p>

<ul>
	<li>GMC Denali XL</li>
	<li>Cadillac Escalade ESV</li>
	<li>Chevy Suburban</li>
	<li>Toyota Land Cruiser</li>
	<li>GMC Yukon</li>
	<li>Chevy Avalanche</li>
	<li>Dodge Ram</li>
</ul>

<p>And those are just the ones the Times knows about. There must be others. Can we get some more listed in the comments please?</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Utah State Government Moving to 4 Day Work Week</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/06/utah_state_government_moving_to_4_day_work_week.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=169" title="Utah State Government Moving to 4 Day Work Week" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.169</id>
    
    <published>2008-06-26T19:11:03Z</published>
    <updated>2008-06-26T19:12:23Z</updated>
    
    <summary>The state of Utah has decided to eliminate 1 full day from the work week in order to save money &amp; save energy. Plus, state workers will be able to save gas since they eliminate 1 full day of commuting per week.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Conserve Energy" />
    
        <category term="Wasteful Commuting" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Quick disclaimer ... since I now <a href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/06/teleworking_from_salt_lake_city.html">live in Salt Lake City</a>, when I write about <a href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2007/12/kudos_to_albany_transit_authority.html">local</a> <a href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2007/06/local_solar_power_in_albany_ny.html">stuff</a>, it's probably going to relate to the western region.</p>

<p>The governor of Utah has just announced that <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3625548">state workers will switch</a> from a 5 day/8 hour schedule to a 4 day/10 hour week - largely in order to reduce energy consumption (both personal & business). This is set to begin in August ... and it has not been done by any other state. Who knew Utah would be the leading edge of lifestyle changes designed to address the energy crisis? I'm happily surprised.</p>

<p>Obviously, I think this is great news. Getting thousands of state workers off the road every Friday will reduce gas consumption & limit CO2 emissions. It will eliminate 1 full round-trip commute per week for thousands of employees.</p>

<p>This will also get other states looking at similar proposals. It might get some private businesses doing the same thing. All good.</p>

<p>This makes a lot of sense & it shows good judgment on the part of the governor, Jon Huntsman. Will there be some issues with the change? Certainly. Can they be dealt with? Sure. Everyone needs to have an open mind as we begin to rethink the way we commute to work in light of soaring gas prices. Times change & effective leaders change with the times.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Can You Say Overshoot?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/06/can_you_say_overshoot.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=167" title="Can You Say Overshoot?" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.167</id>
    
    <published>2008-06-25T17:55:29Z</published>
    <updated>2008-06-25T17:55:49Z</updated>
    
    <summary>World population is expected to grow by 1 billion from 1999 to 2012. That&apos;s creating enormous strain on the world&apos;s natural resources.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Misc" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>No? Well, how about this ... can you say <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DB6RO2&show_article=1">7 billion</a>?</p>

<blockquote> The world's population surpassed 6 billion in 1999, meaning it will take only 13 years to add a billion people.

<p>By comparison, the number of people didn't reach 1 billion until 1800, said Carl Haub, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau. It didn't reach 2 billion until 130 years later.</blockquote></p>

<p>1 billion in 13 years. That's how you get a hockey stick graph ...</p>

<p>This is a demand-driven energy crisis we are experiencing. Interesting times indeed.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>A Run-away Climate Catastrophe Train Named China</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/06/a_runaway_climate_catastrophe_train_named_china.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=166" title="A Run-away Climate Catastrophe Train Named China" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.166</id>
    
    <published>2008-06-16T21:40:24Z</published>
    <updated>2008-06-16T21:40:50Z</updated>
    
    <summary>It&apos;s official. China is now pumping more CO2 into the air than we in the US are. The world&apos;s carbon dioxide emissions increased 3% in 2007, and China was responsible for fully two thirds of that increase.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Geopolitics" />
    
        <category term="Global Warming" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>It's official. China is now <a href="http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/china-carbon-emissions-47061602">pumping more CO2</a> into the air than we in the US are.</p>

<p>This is an enormous problem. Even if the people & government of the US got religion on global warming & started to cap and/or reduce carbon emissions, it wouldn't matter. China is now the 500 pound guerilla pounding the Earth like it's an American Tourister suitcase.</p>

<p>And we can't really ask China to stop, either:</p>

<blockquote>The world's carbon dioxide emissions increased 3% in 2007, and China was responsible for fully two thirds of that increase, according to the report. It now emits 14% more than the United States every year, and that figure is expected to grow as the country continues to burn coal, clear forests and make cement to fuel its own economic boom, while manufacturing the world's disposable goods.</blockquote>

<p>The more you learn about the climate crisis, the more you realize it's more about economic growth & population than anything else. You can't expect to radically reduce the CO2 emissions if you still want people to drive, to be mobile, to eat, to go to school, to live. Plus, it becomes even harder if the number of those people who want to do those things keeps increasing. It's like trying to plug the ever-lengthening cracks in a failing dam.</p>

<p>The scale of the problem exceeds any one country's ability to cope effectively with it. This is a global shitstorm ... one without any simple or quick fix that has been made much more difficult to deal with now that Chinese economic growth has "gone plaid".</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Teleworking From Salt Lake City</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/06/teleworking_from_salt_lake_city.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=165" title="Teleworking From Salt Lake City" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.165</id>
    
    <published>2008-06-11T16:53:13Z</published>
    <updated>2008-06-18T19:14:19Z</updated>
    
    <summary></summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Conserve Energy" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>After nearly a month between posts, I'm happy to be back blogging from a new location. My wife & I just moved ourselves to Salt Lake City & thus far, we are really liking the city, the mountains, the sun, the views & the friendly people!</p>

<p><img src="http://www.saveandconserve.com/images/tom-meg-snowbird.jpg" /></p>

<p>With a new location comes a new job, right? Well, no actually. My company was kind enough to offer a telecommute situation, so I am now working from home.</p>

<p>I mention this because it means I'll be driving a LOT less than I had been in Albany. I will be flying quite a bit more than I had been, so I'm not sure what his change means for my net energy use, but I plan to do some research on that front. Look for something in a future post on that topic.</p>

<p>The telecommuting has been going well thus far. Since I work "on the web", the work is the same. Obviously the physical isolation is the big change ... that is - no doubt - an adjustment.</p>

<p>Here are some <a href="http://webworkerdaily.com/2008/06/09/telework-sun-runs-the-numbers/">interesting numbers</a> that detail energy savings from teleworking reported by Sun Microsystems on Web Worker Daily:</p>

<blockquote>
* The average worker only used 64 watts per hour at home, compared to 130 watts per hour in a Sun office.<br>
* Commuting was responsible for 98% of each employee's carbon footprint.<br>
* Working from home two and a half days per week saves two and a half weeks of commuting time per year.<br>
* The same amount of work at home saves 5400 kilowatt hours of energy per year.
</blockquote>
]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Is the US Getting Serious About Investing in Passenger Rail?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/05/is_the_us_getting_serious_about_investing_in_passenger_rail.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=164" title="Is the US Getting Serious About Investing in Passenger Rail?" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.164</id>
    
    <published>2008-05-14T19:55:24Z</published>
    <updated>2008-05-14T19:55:33Z</updated>
    
    <summary>House legislation was introduced in May 2008 to invest in high-speed passenger rail systems in the US. The bill is H.R. 6003.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Conserve Energy" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>After years of physical neglect & recurring financial woes, it looks like Congress might be starting to comprehend that our passenger rail system is in need of serious help (read: money). While European & Asian countries have long invested billions into high-speed rail systems that typically average over 125mph, here in the US we have Amtrak's Acela running in the Northeast corridor & averaging in the low 80s. Not exactly threatening any land speed records.</p>

<p>Although our train system is pretty much a total national embarrassment (<a href="http://www.kunstler.com/spch_petrocollapse.html">something the Bulgarians would be ashamed of</a>), it's not a total loss ... at least we have plenty of <em>opportunity</em> to improve ;)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=16484">New legislation has recently been introduced</a> in the House of Representatives that shows significant sign of life. This is probably the most promising bill I have seen introduced in the past 5 years.</p>

<p>The new bill appropriates about $1.3 billion per year (over 5 years) for Amtrak capital needs. This is the money Amtrak needs to get the system in a state of "good repair". These are the funds the Bush admin has <a href="www.saveandconserve.com/2008/02/amtrak_attacked_by_bush_admin_again.html">sought to pillage</a> on an annual basis. Locking the funds up for the next 5 years is huge.</p>

<p>Most promising is the emphasis in the new bill on high-speed rail. Rail travel is so much more efficient in terms of energy use that it is inevitable that rail travel will become a much more important means of getting around in future years. Finally, Congressional <strike>dingbats</strike> leaders seem to have gotten the message (with oil at $125/barrel) that it doesn't make a lot of sense to have tons of people driving from NYC to Boston when they could be riding a comfy (hopefully wifi-enabled) train that sucks down a fraction of the energy all those cars would.</p>

<p>I feel like electrified passenger rail is going to be one of the meta-trends in American lifestyle change in the next 25 years. This bill might be the first step ...</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Bike to Work Day 2008</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/05/bike_to_work_day_2008.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=163" title="Bike to Work Day 2008" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.163</id>
    
    <published>2008-05-09T13:48:30Z</published>
    <updated>2008-05-09T13:48:19Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Bike to work day is coming quick - May 16th, 2008. Get on your bike &amp; ride to work - it&apos;s good for the environment, reduces your fuel consumption &amp; it&apos;s good for the body.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Conserve Energy" />
    
        <category term="Wasteful Commuting" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/218/503282839_814a7ce2ca.jpg"></p>

<p>Reminder! <a href="http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bikemonth/">May is Bike to Work month, next week is Bike to Work week & next Friday (the 16th) is Bike to Work day</a>.</p>

<p>So, if you have a bike & you're reasonably close to work, consider biking in next Friday. It's good for the environment & the body. Plus, maybe it will inspire others to consider biking in the future.</p>

<p><small><em>Photo by Flickr user <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/sqrt/503282839/sizes/m/">nnnnic</a> used under a Creative Commons license</em></small></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Hawaii to Mandate Solar Hot Water</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/05/hawaii_to_mandate_solar_hot_water.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=162" title="Hawaii to Mandate Solar Hot Water" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.162</id>
    
    <published>2008-05-07T15:16:01Z</published>
    <updated>2008-05-07T15:19:30Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Hawaii has passed a bill that will require new home builders to install solar hot water systems beginning in 2010.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Solar Energy" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>As Al Gore has <a href=http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2490201820080124">recently stated</a>, changing light bulbs is nice, but it doesn't really address the climate crisis/global warming/energy crisis in a meaningful way (it's far more symbolic). Much more interesting is the notion of government working to pass laws that enforce/encourage/mandate energy efficient behavior.</p>

<p>Which leads us to the <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24468002/">news from Hawaii</a>:</p>

<blockquote>All new homes in Hawaii will be required to have solar water heaters installed starting in 2010 under a law approved by the Legislature.

<p>Hawaii becomes the first state requiring the energy-saving systems in homes.</p>

<p>Solar water heaters typically cost home buyers about $5,000 extra on their mortgage, but island residents will save thousands of dollars over the years on their electricity bills, supporters said.</blockquote></p>

<p>This is the sort of aggressive law-making we need right now. Kudos to the Hawaiian state legislature, which passed this bill nearly unanimously. Obviously that implies the Hawaiian people support the bill, but still it's a pioneering step that shows other states it can be done.</p>

<p>These are the kinds of changes that can have real significant impact to energy consumption/carbon emissions further down the road. Great news!</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Small Is Practical</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/05/small_is_practical.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=161" title="Small Is Practical" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.161</id>
    
    <published>2008-05-02T20:30:17Z</published>
    <updated>2008-05-02T20:30:25Z</updated>
    
    <summary>US consumers are responding to high gas prices by moving away from light trucks &amp; SUVs towards smaller cars. The trend continued in April &amp; shows the consumers will choose wisely if given the right incentives.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Energy Prices" />
    
        <category term="Money" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Earlier this year, I <a href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/04/consumers_tell_suvs_to_stick_it.html">wrote about how</a> US consumers are responding to high gas prices by moving away from light trucks & SUVs towards smaller cars. The trend <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080502/bs_nm/usa_autosales_dc_4">continued in April</a>:</p>

<blockquote>Of equal concern to automakers, buyers defected from high-margin trucks and SUVs to cheaper and more fuel-efficient cars more rapidly than expected due to high gasoline prices.

<p>Cars accounted for 53 percent of sales in April with light trucks near 47 percent, a nearly complete reversal of the share of the categories a year earlier, according to Autodata.</p>

<p>The market shift toward cars has favored Japanese automakers with more established small car offerings.</p>

<p>By contrast, the trend has pummeled the truck-heavy lineups of Detroit-based automakers with the average price of regular unleaded gasoline punching above $3.62 per gallon on Thursday, a record high, according to AAA.</p>

<p>The three Detroit-based automakers had just a 48 percent share of the world's largest vehicle market in April, down 5 percentage points from a year earlier.</blockquote></p>

<p>Let's hear it for the oft-maligned US consumer. Common sense decisions are a possibility in this country, if given the right incentives.</p>

<p>These news reports make it clear to me that the problem in this country is not with the end user. The problem is with the program. Americans would eat alternative energy up if given the (sensible) opportunity. This was covered in detail in the movie <a href="www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-the-Electric-Car/dp/B000MRICYW?tag=saveandconser-20"><em>Who Killed the Electric Car?</em></a>, which is a stunning documentary about how environmentally-conscious Californians wanted to buy electric cars, but weren't able to do so because of corporate interests & weak government.</p>

<p>How do we fix or change the program is the question. I'm not really sure how that gets done sans crisis or some major problem or negative event. The corporate interests control the government & they have zero incentive to cede control. Control will have to be taken ... which implies organization & inspiration.</p>

<p>As this political season is showing, the people are nowhere near as empowered as they need to be to make change happen. People just don't care enough to get involved at the level required to make real changes happen.</p>

<p>There's a glimmer of hope out there in some of these news stories ... but the light is very faint. I still hold that it will take pain, crisis, bad shit to get people moving in the right direction.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Reason Number 27,743 &amp; 27,744 to be Concerned</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/04/reason_number_27743_to_be_concerned.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=160" title="Reason Number 27,743 &amp; 27,744 to be Concerned" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.160</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-24T13:39:20Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-24T13:39:22Z</updated>
    
    <summary>The amount of methane in Earth&apos;s atmosphere increased 0.5% in 2007 after a decade of little to no change. Uh oh.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Global Warming" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p><strong>#27,743</strong>: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/business/worldbusiness/24firstcar.html">The Chinese really like to buy cars</a> ... the bigger, the better.</p>

<p><strong>#27,744</strong>: The amount of methane (a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2) in the atmosphere <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2345712720080423">increased 0.5% in 2007</a> after a decade of little to no change.</p>

<p>Is it me or is the troubling news coming harder & faster these days?</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>How to Reduce Gas Consumption</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/04/how_to_reduce_gas_consumption.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=159" title="How to Reduce Gas Consumption" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.159</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-20T16:56:31Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-20T16:56:08Z</updated>
    
    <summary>We have to begin reducing our dependence on oil because there is not going to be enough oil in a world of 9 billion. This article shows how we can start to reduce our consumption.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Conservation is our best option ... here's a graphic from this weekend's NY Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/weekinreview/20mouawad.html">article about the future of oil</a>, which is not looking very bright to say the least:</p>

<p><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/20/weekinreview/oilgraphic-2-425x1572.jpg"></p>

<p>It can be done, if people decide we must change the way we live our lives. It's really only a matter of time. There is no way there is enough oil to support this:</p>

<blockquote>Today's tensions are only likely to get worse in coming years. Consider a few numbers: The planet's population is expected to grow by 50 percent to nine billion by sometime in the middle of the century. The number of cars and trucks is projected to double in 30 years-- to more than two billion -- as developing nations rapidly modernize. And twice as many passenger jetliners, more than 36,000, will in all likelihood be crisscrossing the skies in 20 years.</blockquote>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Peak Oil Hits Yahoo Finance Homepage</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/04/peak_oil_hits_yahoo_finance_homepage.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=158" title="Peak Oil Hits Yahoo Finance Homepage" />
    <id>tag:www.saveandconserve.com,2008://1.158</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-18T13:59:35Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-18T14:56:30Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Yahoo Finance tells us that you can profit from peak oil. That&apos;s right, peak oil is nothing to worry about. Nothing at all. In fact, it&apos;s a good thing.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>tom c.</name>
        <uri>www.saveandconserve.com</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Peak Oil" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saveandconserve.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Wha wha ... <strong>what</strong>???</p>

<p>On the day after the New York Times <a href="http://www.saveandconserve.com/2008/04/krugman_ny_times_on_peak_oil.html">breaks the seal</a>, Yahoo Finance drops a "peak oil" reference right on the homepage:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.saveandconserve.com/images/yahoo-finance-peakoil-041608-mod.JPG"><br />
<small>note: I grabbed this screenshot at some point in the afternoon on April 16th</small></p>

<p>This seems significant ... but that may be because I am online a lot & possibly give Yahoo Finance more weight than another person would. And what a way to introduce the topic - make them think this is a money maker. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all. In fact, this is a good thing. Peak oil = $ ... now <em><strong>that's</strong></em> a good one!</p>

<p>In case you're interested, here's <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/11442/6-Ways-to-Profit-from-'Peak-Oil'?tickers=PBR,CNQ,ECA,SU,NXY,XOM,CVX">the article</a> the "peak oil" blurb pointed to. Good luck profiting ;-)</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

</feed> 

