Pledge to Stop Using Bottled Water!

Earlier I posted about how much money you can save by not using bottled water. Now, I'm going to ask you to pledge to not use bottled water! You can do so at the New American Dream website... please join those of us who no longer use bottled water, and use refillable bottles with tap water (which is pretty much the same as bottled water, don't let the marketers fool you!).

Stop Drinking Bottled Water, Save Hundreds of Dollars

As is becoming very clear, bottled water is a total rip-off. It's more expensive than gasoline, it creates unnecessary waste, the plastic in the bottles permeates the water inside with phthalates and puts our health at risk, and it's not any safer to drink than normal tap water.

Yet somehow, the bottled water industry has created this impression that it's much better than tap water.

Let's see just how much money you can save per year by avoiding tap water by using the bottled water cost calculator at New American Dream:

Now let me preface this by saying I haven't been drinking bottled water for over a year, so this isn't actually money I'll be saving as I've already kicked the habit. I drink from a 40 ounce stainless steel bottle, at least one bottle full per day. Figuring that into bottled water terms, it's about 913 sixteen-ounce bottles per year.

According to the calculator, I save $1367 per year. Plus I'm not putting anything into landfills or poisoning myself. Plus, I have this impact:

Impact
Total Water Consumed:	143 gallons
Extra Water Required for Production and Purification:	285 gallons
Energy Required for Manufacturing:	92 megajoules
Oil Required to Produce the Plastic Bottle(s):	23 gallons
CO2e to Manufacture Plastic Bottle(s):	171 pounds

I got my bottle at Whole Foods, it's an Enviro Products bottle. It's sturdy and holds plenty of water, so I don't have to refill it all the time (which is good, as I sweat a lot and can put down a sixteen ounce bottle in two swigs most of the time). My wife and son use bottles from Sigg and they both love them. The necks are a bit smaller for Jenn's, which is 1 liter, and Duncan's is .4 liters and has a twist-top that allows him to drink more easily and close it more easily. Plus it's got glow-in-the-dark astronauts on the outside and he loves that. Moira will be getting hers as soon as she's out of sippy-cups.

We got ours at Clintonville Outfitters on High Street - support local business and get yours there!

That's One Short Plunge...

The AP is reporting that oil prices have "plunged" by $10 a barrel! Wow! We're saved! Now oil only costs...

Um... $138.00 a barrel.

I'm sorry, but this is the same stupid snow job that the oil companies have been trying to foist on us for years. Gas is up from around a $1.50 a gallon to over $4.00... but in the meantime, we've seen them raise it up to say... $2.50, then back to $2.25 in a HUGE cut! Then up to $3.00, then back to $2.75...

Folks... there's no price cut going on here. Oil is going up and it's going to stay that way. They oil companies are just waiting till we get used to a certain price level and then they lower it to a level that would previously have gotten us up in arms. It's a big joke and a snow job.

Could an Increase in Renewable Energy Lead to More Terrorism?

This post is designed as more of a rambling thought process than as any sort of quantifiable or supportable hypothesis. Keep that in mind - the point here is to discuss, not to define or state fact.

Despite the fact that I think the idea of converting as much of our energy in the US (and yes, around the world) to renewable sources such as solar, tidal, wind, etc. is the necessary step for us to take to improve the environment and get out of the quagmire that is the Middle East, I'm also concerned that such a step will open the floodgates to a whole new set of problems. This is a discussion of some of those problems as regards terrorism.

During what is commonly called "the Dark Ages" in Europe (when in fact it was hardly any sort of dark age, from what I've been reading recently), the Middle East and Muslim culture was soaring forward on the academic and cultural fronts. Much of the learning of ancient Greece and Rome was absorbed by Muslim scholars and improved upon, and many new sciences were developed as well. The number system we use today comes directly from that used by Muslim scholars; indeed the number zero was created by the Muslim mathematicians who found need for a placeholder in their system. Truly brilliant work was done during this time, and the Muslim world was the greatest center of learning in the world during that period.

Fast forward to the discovery of oil in the Middle East. Suddenly (or not so suddenly, given the imperialist nature of European powers in the 18th and 19th centuries), the value of the Middle East was no longer in the quality of its scholars and its position as a center of learning, but rather in its location and the black, oozy mess that was under its sands.

Since that discovery, and the sudden wealth that the sheiks and shahs and the like were bringing in based on nothing more than blind luck (that the oil was under their territories), the culture of the Middle East has been in a sharp decline. Instead of centers of learning, we now had centers of power, where those who controlled the flow of oil controlled the politics as well. Learning was taken out of the equation and pure capitalism was embraced in its stead.

So we now have a once-great culture, renowned for repositories of knowledge and institutions of learning, and now simply the distributors of a product. One product - crude oil. And in that time, the Muslim world has gone from a peaceful, mostly tolerant area of the world (and despite traditional views of the Crusades, it was an invasion by the Christian world of the Muslim world) to a very factionalized area, with rampant terrorism and intolerant regimes of all sorts. Let's face it - the globalized world has not been kind to the Middle East, for the most part. Sure, there are great centers of capitalism in the Middle East such as Dubai, but how many of those people are actually benefiting from that money rolling in? That's right: very few.

Now, the primary consumers of that one product, the western world (America and Europe), are trying to move away from an oil-based energy system. A system that our demand for a single product has put in place in the Middle East is now basically going to be abandoned, now that we're increasingly done with the product. What will the outcry of that be in the Middle East?

If I was a resident of that part of the world, and I'd seen my entire country revolve around the sale of oil for decades based on the demand of the western world, only to have that demand vanish over the span of a few years, I wouldn't be a particularly understanding person. In fact, what I'd see is that the West took my country and used it up, then leaving it on its own after it served its use.

What kind of resentment is going to remain in those countries after we leave and take our money with us? And what kind of revenge are they going to seek against us after we leave?

As I see it, the one thing we'd have going for us is that no more money would be flowing out of our coffers and into theirs, so there would be less money for terrorism (and let's face it - terrorism costs money, otherwise they wouldn't need to get oil money from Arabian sheiks).

Other than that, the necessary step we are taking to reduce our use of oil is going to result in a whole new set of problems. Keep your eyes open.

I welcome your comments - please keep it civil. I don't mean to offend anyone with my comments, just to stir up some debate.

The Best Argument I've Seen for Taking Action Against Global Warming

I've put forth a few arguments in favor of taking action against climate change. I've mentioned that any action we take to fight global warming is a positive action elsewhere as well, whether it fights pollution, reduces the obesity rates, increases the health of our populations, etc.

But here's an argument that I can't believe hasn't made the rounds yet. Well, it will now.

Bush Set To Disobey Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's landmark case regarding the Environmental Protection Agency and global warming is near to being totally defied by the Bush Administration - predictably.

From the Los Angeles Times:

President Bush, while acknowledging Tuesday that he took "very seriously" the Supreme Court's ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles as pollution, set up a potential conflict with Congress by attaching two conditions to comply with the decision.

Bush said that any regulatory program should not slow economic growth, nor should its benefits to the atmosphere be offset by mounting emissions from China, India and other growing economies.

So, let's sort this out:

First, Bush says that a regulatory program should not slow economic growth. Obviously, the Bush Administration continues to follow the mindset that environmental policy enforcement means slowing the economy, when most reports today indicate that such enforcement will actually HELP the economy in the long run. Otherwise, why would companies like Wal-Mart be attempting to go green? The big box store giant announced late last year that it was attempting to produce zero waste and use entirely renewable fuels. And companies like DuPont and General Electric have announced similar goals, as a SMALL example.

So it seems the encouragement and enforcement of environmental policies is actually a PRO-economy move... unless you're in an industry that makes its living from being a polluter, specifically energy, oil and coal industries. And guess who put Bush into the White House!

Second, Bush says that our efforts should not be offset by China, India, and other developing countries. So, in other words, Bush is applying the playground mentality of "Joey doesn't have to do it, why do I have to?" Grow up, Mr. President. The economic issue isn't valid, therefore neither is this issue - we don't have to pollute to keep up with developing nations like China and India economically. And the US is the number one polluter in the world - our reduction in emissions can't help but make an impact, no matter WHAT China and India do.

And one final note: the President doesn't have the legal option to defy the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decisions are final, they are the Constitutional law of the land. He, as the head of the executive branch, is constitutionally bound to enforce the law of the land - no matter what. But, given his flouting of his constitutional responsibilities throughout his administration, should we be surprised?

It's Amazing How The Human Mind Works... Occasionally

It boggles the mind sometimes, doesn't it? You just want to grab people by the head and yell "IT'S NOT ABOUT THE PRICE AT THE PUMP!"

I'll Take Potpourri For $1000, Alex

Just a little bit of catch-up to cover the holiday happenings here, before I go off tomorrow on whatever the result of the Sugar Bowl is.

• Christmas was great. I got to spend some quality family time at home with Jenn and Duncan and he really had a good time (though I'm getting a little weary of his Wiggles piano). Duncan also got a pair of padded (of course) hockey sticks and a ball. He's happy as a clam - the kid has picked up on hockey as his favorite sport, for whatever reason, and he runs around the house with one of the sticks, not flailing it around as much as I'd feared, and having a great time trying to hit the ball.
  
  For myself, I got a lot of James Bond stuff from my wonderful family; a pair of bike tights, some gloves, and a pump/repair kit from my folks; a beautiful Irish sweater from Jenn; and some other fun trinkets from various other folks. The tights are going to work out nicely, I think, plus they show off my sexy legs really well. ;)
  
  The one disappointment - our global-warming-addled climate not having enough snow for me to take Duncan sledding on the sled I restored for him for his gift. Hopefully we'll get some of Denver's weather.
  
  
• The best bowl game I've seen so far is the Fiesta Bowl and the upset win by the Boise State Broncos. Despite my disappointment that the Glendale staff didn't paint half the field blue for the visitors from the potato state, the game was the most fun to watch of all of them. Normally I hate the NCAA's overtime structure, but darn it if that wasn't a great one. To watch a team actually go for a two point conversion instead of playing it safe and taking the one-pointer to force a second overtime period was a joy. And I always (with one notable exception, Jenn) enjoy watching Big 12 teams look like a bunch of over-hyped jokers.
  
  And the incurable romantic in my heart appreciated Fox covering the post-game proposal by Broncos star running back Ian Johnson to his cheerleader girlfriend... true Americana there!
  
  
• I started a new twist on my workout routine - instead of saying "I'm gonna work out every day" or something like that, I am going for numbers this year: I set a goal for the year of 100,000 Hindu squats and 30,000 Hindu push ups from the Matt Furey Combat Conditioning workout. And keeping track of those reps all year long will hopefully help me to have something to really strive for. We'll see... check out my other blog if you're curious about how that's working out (no pun intended).
  
  
• The Sugar Bowl has me a bit scared. LSU is gonna be tough, and we've not played up to our potential in a lot of games this season (with the exception of the Penn State game). Hopefully Weis has the boys ready. And hopefully we'll be surprised as we were back in the Cheerios Bowl a decade ago.
  
  
• I watched a great documentary from Discovery Times that I'd Tivoed a couple months ago (finally) called Addicted To Oil. Created by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas L. Friedman, it goes into the damage that oil does to our national security and to our climate, really breaking it down and showing the effects on both our security and the world's weather. He also goes into oil alternatives for both vehicles and general consumption, pointing out the good and bad of the various ideas. Very cool - check it out if you have the chance.
  
  And yes, I still need to see An Inconvenient Truth though I know most of what he's talking about already.
  
  
• On a similar train of thought, I watched Syriana over the holidays. This movie was outstanding though very disturbing at parts. Theatrically, it was a bit confusing, though that's part of its charm - you never are quite sure what's going on any more than the characters themselves are. It's definitely a movie you can see over and over and make new connections all the time.
  
  But the more important thing to take from it is the hypocrisy of the oil industry and its proponents in the government. The part that got me the most is when the eldest son of the emir, Nasir, is talking about how the US wants his brother to be the new emir because they consider him a Communist, simply because he decided to sell the country's oil to China as they offered him the best price (a very capitalist idea, wouldn't you think?).
  
  Go see this one if you haven't already. Though, if you're looking for a typically buff and sexy George Clooney in it, you're going to be watching the wrong movie because he reportedly put on 30 pounds for the role.
  
  
• There are still a couple things I want to get for my biking experience - a set of bike lights for the dark days and for my own safety, and some panniers so I don't have to use a backpack (and hopefully are a little more waterproof than the backpack I'm currently using. A set of fenders would also be nice - so I don't have to keep putting on rain pants.
  

I think that's everything.

Automakers Try To Hide The Truth About Their Failure

Interesting article in the news today (I have an LA Times link, only because it's the first one I've come across among the many).

The nation's Big Three automakers have apparently gone to President Bush with complaints that the Asian Automakers are keeping their currencies artificially low in order to keep their prices low. President Bush apparently wouldn't make any promises, particularly since he's headed to Asia for an economic conference.

Apparently what the Big Three don't quite get is that the reason they're failing is that they have failed to keep up with what people really want in their cars: fuel efficiency. Gone are the days when oversized SUVs ruled the road. Now those road hogs are also seen as gas hogs, and people are rejecting these behemoths in favor of more fuel efficient compact cars, and especially hybrids.

And now, in this environment where capitalism is supposedly doing such wonders for our economy, we see some of the top employers asking the government for a handout.

Wake up, Big Three - the reason you are losing money is that you aren't providing the cars people want and you're trying to blame it on unfair trade practices. Wake up, change, and make cars people want. You can run all the truck ads you want and try to make SUVs look hip, but if it isn't cheap at the pump, people won't buy them.