That was one of the worst debates I have ever seen. Both of the candidates skirted around directly answering why they support giving billions of taxpayer money to the corrupt people who created the current financial crisis.

When the majority of Americans oppose the disastrous bill, why didn’t either of the candidates seize the opportunity to lock-up more votes affirmatively declaring their opposition to it?

I’ll tell you why. Both candidates are bought and paid for by Wall Street.

Don’t agree? Here are some facts.

(statistics courtesy Opensecrets.org)

Here is a rundown of Barack Obama’s campaign contributors.

Goldman Sachs is the leading contributor to Obama’s campaign with a donation of $691,930.

Yes, this is the same company for which Henry Paulson was the former CEO, the goon who designed this calamitous bailout plan.

Obama has also received donations Citigroup, JP Morgan & Chase, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, and Latham & Watkins.

Essentially, Obama has taken campaign contributions from the very companies that need bailing out.

The story is the same, if not worse, with McCain.

All of his top 5 donors are financial companies; Merril Lynch, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Again, the same company for which Henry Paulson was a former CEO was one of the top donors for McCain’s campaign.

Also donating to his campaign are UBS AG, Bank of America, Wachovia Corp, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Pinnacle West Capital.

Many of the failing Wall Street Companies that have donated to the two campaigns are involved in this treacherous bailout scheme.

And you wonder why they both support a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street?

They spent the entire debate squabbling about foreign policy, but failed to mention that they need money to accomplish their goals.

If the country is in a depression, or a severe recession, there will be no money to accomplish anything. How can you tax people that have no money?

They are both bought and paid for. They don’t care about the American Taxpayers.

Wake up America, your country is being swept out from under you by a bunch of Wall Street carpetbaggers. If you allow this bill to go through this country will never be the same.

The Doomed and the Blind

As politicians sit squabbling in Washington, deliberating and deciding, an asteroid 4 kilometers across is thundering through space at 15 miles per second. It was forged in a galactic maelstrom millions of years ago from molten metal, and now it tumbles through space with malevolent indifference. People sit unaware of an impending disaster, carrying on their daily activities while extinction encroaches. It won’t just be the extinction of a few species, or a few million people, but all life will be wiped off the face of the earth within hours. Our planet will become a barren waste for millions of years, void of vibrant life and wonder.

Is an awful scenario like this really plausible? The answer is yes. The threat is very real and the evidence is in the scars our earth bears on the surface, the massive craters on the moon, and the giant wounds on Mars. You would expect that something so catastrophic and horrible for our species and planet would demand attention from lawmakers; wrong. Although our government is well-informed by agencies like NASA, it has neglected to properly fund Near Earth Object (NEO) programs, and it could lead to our destruction. An asteroid impact is a natural disaster we can actually prevent, and if our representatives don’t take steps to improve our warning systems, we will suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs.

As Congress approves billions of dollars for the war in Iraq, they reject a program which would well-equip us to deal with the NEO threat. The cost of the program runs from $300 million to $1.1 billion (Shoemaker), less than the cost of one B-2 stealth bomber at $1.157 billion (Scott). The lower cost would cover using or modifying existing space telescopes to look for potentially hazardous asteroids. It would cost $1.1 billion to build a new space telescope for the same purpose. Congress has rejected both of these plans because they are “too costly (Shoemaker).” Using existing systems, we have detected thousands of NEOs in our solar system. They range in size from a few hundred meters to several kilometers, the largest being the celestial body Ganymed, which is over 32 km, or 20 miles, in diameter (Near Earth Object Fact Sheet). Although it is highly unlikely, if the asteroid Ganymed hit our planet it would obliterate all life, shred the earth’s crust, and bury itself deep in the mantle. It would cause massive volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and even has a chance of ripping our planet apart.

There are over 20,000 objects with diameters greater than 140 meters, or 460 feet, that could collide with the earth. NASA scientists believe they could locate 90% of the objects by the year 2020, but funding has prevented them from doing their job (Near Earth Objects). A perfect example would be the near-miss of the asteroid 2002 EM7, which missed our planet by 298,400 miles, which is about 1.2 times the distance from earth to the moon (Britt). The object was between 40 and 80 meters across, or 130 to 260 feet, and could have destroyed an entire city if it had impacted earth. Some people think that our current system is sufficient, but here’s the kicker; scientists didn’t find the object days after it had passed by our planet. How can the current system be adequate when it didn’t detect an object that could have slammed into our planet and killed millions of people?

The asteroid came at earth from a blind spot in which it couldn’t have been detected using current systems (Britt). The solution to correcting this blind spot would be to construct an observatory or to launch a space-based platform that can observe asteroids from a different galactic vantage point. Scientists at NASA have suggested that placing an observatory around the planet Mercury could help detect objects in this blind spot, but the funding has certainly not been made available by Washington (Britt).

On November 1^st, 2007 an object 50 meters across passed within 5 million miles of earth and wasn’t detected until November 20^th. An article on NASA’s NEO website highlighted the event,

“Designated 2007 WD5, the asteroid was discovered on Nov. 20, 2007 by the NASA-funded Catalina Sky Survey using a 1.5m telescope on Mt. Lemmon, near Tucson. The object had already passed within 7.5 million km (5 million miles) of the Earth on Nov. 1, before it was discovered. (Chesley).”

Right now, this is a common occurrence. The lack of funding by Congress leaves us opens to an impact which could change the course of human history, or completely wipe us out as a species. Without a comprehensive program to detect objects of all sizes and trajectories, we leave ourselves open to a knockout blow.

An article on Space.com explains that, “about 1,000 asteroids larger than 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) are thought to lurk in orbits that might one day threaten Earth,” and that “about 500 of them have been found (Britt).” The larger objects are easier to track and locate, but pose a greater threat to civilization. Smaller objects are harder to track, but could still cause localized devastation. Over Siberia in 1908, an unknown object exploded, likely an air-burst meteor, and flattened over 800 miles of trees and vegetation. The size of the object which exploded is unknown, but measurements and estimates place the size around 60 to 80 meters across (Research Center). The object caused widespread devastation, and if it had exploded over a major city it would have caused hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths. Objects this small are much more difficult to detect than larger objects, even today.

The size of the object is not the only thing that determines the magnitude of impact; density is also a factor. A smaller asteroid, like the 20 meter wide asteroid that left a 600 foot deep crater in Arizona, can cause as much damage as a larger asteroid with a lower density (Britt). The diameter doesn’t necessarily tell the whole story. Objects larger than 500 meters across can cause widespread surface damage to the earth wherever they impact, create tsunamis, block out the sun, incinerate large areas, and kill millions of people. The larger the object, the greater the threat they pose.

As of now, the greater risk comes from the smaller asteroids which are harder to detect with our current systems. Until we develop a full catalogue of the larger asteroids, and we’ve detected and tracked every one, we are susceptible to a catastrophic impact, no matter how small the chance. The problem isn’t warding off asteroids, because we have adequate weapons like nuclear ballistic missiles that can change an asteroid’s course, but it is detecting them. Right now we aren’t allocating enough resources to provide NEO researchers the tools to evaluate all potential threats.

To solve the problem of under funding by congress, I propose an ambitious presentation. Recently, the University of Arizona published a web page which allows users to ‘test’ their own asteroid impact. You can input projectile diameter, velocity, type of material, density, impact angle, and rock target type and you will receive a series of outputs which predict an asteroid impact (Marcus). My proposal involves a much more graphical approach, as opposed to a strictly numerical approach, but would incorporate the use of genuine data like the University of Arizona’s website.

I think that the members of congress need to see visual representations of what an impact would mean for the earth. They need to see 3d models of an asteroid slamming into an American city. They need to understand how real the threat of an impact is. Rather than just a bunch of numbers and statistics, they need to see that cities will be obliterated, people will die, and the world will be changed forever by a significant or well-placed impact. I would provide graphs of damage costs, death tolls, and would show what various impacts would do to cities, shorelines, climate, and the stability of life on earth. I think that too often politicians look at problems based on numbers, and fail to see the reality of some situations.

The project will graphically explain what different size asteroids would do to urban areas, suburban areas, and rural areas. The presentation would mainly use smaller asteroids from 30 to 500 meters across as examples. It is simply more realistic and I wouldn’t want to go overboard and lose credibility by proclaiming a giant asteroid, which we wouldn’t be able to detect, would unknowingly slam into our world unexpectedly. Realism and graphical representation are key to convincing lawmakers to fund NEO programs. Data from actual past-earth impacts would be plugged-in to the simulation, and the result would be an accurate depiction of what might happen. I would also utilize photos of impact craters in Arizona, the Yucatan in Mexico, Siberia, and Asia, as well as craters on the moon and Mars, to quantify the threat. I think that after seeing the consequences of an impact on American cities, and seeing the evidence of past impacts, it would be incredibly hard to look away.

Over the course of human history, our species has faced many threats. Some came from predators in the wild, some from other humans, and some from space. Our ancestors were powerless to stop an incoming asteroid from striking the planet. If a ‘World-Killer’ asteroid had slammed into the planet, they wouldn’t see it coming, and couldn’t do anything about it. Now, for the first time in our history, we have the ability to prevent our own demise. We can detect and deflect incoming objects, saving millions of lives, and possibly our planet. Out there in the blackness of space, an asteroid large enough to cram the city of Phoenix hundreds of feet into the earth’s mantle slowly tumbles over itself. It’s in one of our blind spots, where we can’t detect it. If we invest a few billion dollars in NEO programs, we can greatly reduce the possibility of being hit by surprise.

The question is: Why aren’t we? The graveness of the situation needs to be appreciated by our lawmakers, as well as the public. No longer can we sit by and fund wars oblivious to the real and immense threat posed by asteroids. Write your politicians, protest in Washington, do whatever it takes for them to listen. We might not have as much time as you think, and don’t let politicians tell you otherwise. They’re quick to fund wars, yet quick to ignore what really matters.

According to a report by the National Solid Wastes Management Association, or NSWMA, the average American household generates 4.4 pounds of garbage every day, and about 1600 pounds per year. Doesn’t it all seem like a huge waste? No pun intended, but can’t we put our garbage to use to generate clean energy?

Waste Management is currently developing a system to convert sewage and raw garbage into clean energy, and at the same time help to alleviate the strain excessive amounts of garbage has had on landfills.

Currently Waste Management is re-using garbage to generate enough power to supply one-million homes, and will soon have enough to power two-million a year.

Solar Hydro Energy Corporation is developing a process that helps to convert methane from landfills into hydrogen. Other companies are experimenting with the use of plasma to break down compounds into harmless elements that can be used for power.

As fascinating as these approaches are, I think the most realistic and appealing approach would be to have home units which can break down waste and convert it into power. Imagine having your own trash-compactor that can also double as a power-generator.

You wouldn’t have to buy power from the grid, and you would help the environment as well. It would take a while for these devices to reach an affordable price where many people can have access to them, but it would be worth the wait. Imagine never having to pay a power bill again… I’m sure that’s something you’d look forward to.

But don’t expect the energy giants to roll over, they might fight tooth-and-nail like the oil industry to keep their stranglehold on the economy. They wouldn’t want to go out of business, so it would be either adapt or die for them at that point. They could help design, develop, and produce these waste-energy generators, or fizzle out and disappear.

I mean it’s not a doom-and-gloom scenario (click here for a real one), but merely reality. Adapting to a changing energy market, defined by the long-tail effect, will be the defining transformation that will make-or-break energy giants.

Still driving that steam-spitting, steel crushing, monster-on-wheels, spewing black-smoke pollution machine that breaks down often but gets you there?

What if there was another way to get around? What if you had a vehicle which could take you from point A to B in a moderate amount of time, and get you in shape at the same time? Well, my friends, there is a magical invention called the ‘bicycle’ which does just that.

Now obviously you have heard of a bicycle, and for those of you that haven’t, please see the picture below. With the astronomical prices of gas nowadays, many people are more than happy to ride to work, school, and back on their bikes. It’s saving the environment, money, and gets you in shape. What better way to curb America’s weight problem than to ride a bike?

Image courtesy travelismo.com.

Now I’m not going to write a whole post encouraging you to go ride a bike, because well, that would be kind of ridiculous… so I’ll introduce some new ideas.

You know how you pay for power? Well, I’m kind of sick of it, and if you’re like me, you could be cheap as well.

Here’s my idea: How about people hook up generators to their bikes, and over the course of the day they accumulate power in a battery source as they ride around.

They can then use this battery source to power anything from a computer to a home appliance to lights. If you’re going to ride your bike anyways, why not generate some power? It could save you money, save the environment, and if you rode more you would lose a few pounds?

I got the idea from a story over at Alternative Energy News. about an innovator who has created a practical solution to help purify polluted drinking-water.

There’s a man named Paul Berg who’s an engineer with CH2M Hill Inc, who has invented a bicycle-powered water sterilizer, which could help an estimated 1.1 billion people purify polluted water. The practical invention is incredibly cheap and with just 25 watts of power, people can purify water and possibly use the power generated by the bicycle for other things.

If you got yourself a stand-alone gym bike, you could lose weight and generate electricity for your home. Coupled with personal wind-power units and solar units, you could power your entire home on renewable resources. It would take a little effort, but if you never have to pay a power bill again would you do it?

I would… then again, some might call me green, but that’s trendy nowadays anyways so I’m cool with it.

The energy crisis is getting out-of-hand, as you’ve probably heard. Check out the prices on oil. They aren’t going down anytime soon either.

I know we consider ourselves world leaders in many areas, such as; technology, culture, and most importantly bombing sovereign nations. Sorry, I had to throw that last one on there.

I didn’t come here to get all political, so I’ll get to my point.

Australia, the country of the Aborigines, kangaroo, dingo, and Foster’s (Australian for beer), has recently drawn-up a design for a revolutionary new solar plant. This plant will generate 200 megawatts of power, and will be able to power 200,000 Australian homes per-year when it’s completed in 2012. EnviroMission Limited is currently constructing the tower in Australia based off a successful prototype-test in Manzanares, Spain.

This solar plant isn’t like any other solar plant; it has a tower. The tower isn’t just for looks though, it does have a function. Everyone knows from basic physics class (or maybe you don’t), that hot air rises. This solar plant is revolutionary because it utilizes the laws of thermodynamics to generate electricity (Check here for a quick brush-up on physics).

The sun heats up the air under the solar collector, forcing the air to rise. When it rises the air turns the turbine and generates electricity. It’s quite a simple idea, but it could alleviate greenhouse gas emissions and generate 100% clean energy.

Most solar collectors and solar plants (like Saguaro Solar Plant in Arizona, below), can’t generate energy at night because there’s no power source. The Solar Tower plant in Australia can generate energy at night thanks to heat storing material located under the solar collector. It stores heat during the day and releases it at night, allowing for continuous operation.

(Image courtesy ABCnews.com)

Why can’t the United States create a solar-tower plant?

The Answer: I’m not sure…

If the Australian full-scale prototype is successful, I’m sure we will be looking into it. Granted we’ll have to make sacrifices, and at a time when the economy is struggling, I don’t think anyone wants to do that.

SOLAR! The energy of the blinding yellow (sometimes orange) glowing ball of light in our sky otherwise known as the sun. Sorry for the mouthful, but hey, it’s the sun; it’s kind of a big deal.

Now rather than tapping into the power grid, you can get your own home-solar energy unit from Power-Save Energy systems. Basically it’s a wind turbine with 600 watts of power in a cylindrical tube. It’s a novel and inventive idea, and will certainly help people alleviate their electrical bills because it doesn’t need a massive support system and can be mounted on a roof or balcony.

It’s interesting to see how in the absence of a large energy conglomerate switching to green energy, new companies are starting to fill niches. The Power-Save company is simply taking advantage of a void created by the refusal of big energy companies to heavily invest in green-renewable energy.

(Image Courtesy Sajadi’s Blog)

Ever hear of the long tail effect? Sure you have. Basically, instead of people getting a large amount of energy from one source, they could possibly get a small amount of energy from different sources. In the same thinking, rather than people buying their energy from the power grid, they could simply get it directly from a home unit.

I’m sure the energy conglomerates wouldn’t want people gaining energy independence. They would lose not only business, but power, and if it’s anything people don’t like losing, it’s power.

(Image courtesy GreenEnergyNews.com)

Although the home wind-turbine unit isn’t going to cause an energy revolution anytime soon (or hey… it might), it could possibly generate more interest in home-energy units. It also probably can’t power a house by itself, but coupled with solar power and other sources, it could help to lessen energy bills. Who doesn’t want a lower power bill?

According to the Energy Information Associaton’s website, the average price of energy, although lower than in the past (since 1960), is again on the rise. This means that Americans will likely be paying more for electricity in the coming days, and having a home power-generating unit wouldn’t be a bad thing.

Mark Paul, owner and operator over at the ‘Energy Independence’ Blog, thinks that we desperately need energy independence, and so do I. Why not give American consumers their very own power plants?

I think we all need a little more energy independence, don’t you?

So I was riding my trusty gray and pink bicycle to class the other day (I’m a real man), enjoying the balmy early Arizona Morning, minding my own business. I was wearing jeans, a sweatshirt and sunglasses, quite the regalia for a quick morning bike ride. I arrived at school, went to class, and afterwards I rode over to Sun Devil Television where I work.

I hung out for about three hours, editing like a well-oiled machine (pardon the cliche).

All was well until I went outside. Damn… It was hot, and it’s February.

So, should I blame global warming for the temperature on this particular day? No, but it reminded me of it. I mean, I believe that it’s real, it certainly is not some ‘cycle of nature.’

So you might ask where I’m going with this… and the answer is:

I don’t know!

Wait… Yes I do, check out this video:

O.K., so I’m not 100 percent sure if this is legitimate but it’s certainly interesting to ponder. Just imagine a world where everyone has equal access to energy. If you’re a politician or an oil company, you probably wouldn’t like this very much. You would lose control of energy and therefore power over people. For the masses it would be fantastic, but energy giants wouldn’t take too kindly to it.

I certainly wouldn’t mind attaching one of these puppies to my bike and tearing across campus. I’d be doing the environment good, and would certainly look like a complete jackass in the process. I mean besides saving the world, looking like a jackass is one of my favorite pastimes.

It’s all linked the ‘zero-point’ energy phenomenon, which you can learn more about on the Calphysics Institute website.

It might not be completely figured out yet, but in the meantime I can get a solar-powered bicycle from treehugger.com. I would certainly want to purchase one, but they are currently being sold by a Canadian company for $1,500 CAD, and with the American Dollar worth about the same as a bag of peanuts, that’s quite expensive. I mean you have to be incredibly lazy to purchase one in the first place, but it’s pretty cool anyways.

Pardon the cheesy title, unless of course you like cheese, but I have been pondering the state of automobiles in our country. We’ve got exotic cars, luxury cars, family cars, family luxury cars, gas guzzlers, classics, etc… The list goes on (for quite a while).

I own a 1997 Grand Marquis, which is quite the love boat. I must say it feels like I am relaxing on a couch whenever I drive it; the seats are just plain fantastic. I especially like the heated seats in the wint-

Errr, uhh.

O.K. O.K. O.K., I’ll get back on topic.

In our country there are many different types of cars from many different makers, of which a good portion are actually from overseas. United States car manufacturers like General Motors, Ford, and Chevrolet (to name a few), have recently (somewhat) caved in to government pressure and are starting to manufacture environment-friendly cars on a large scale. Hybrid car sales began to ’soar’ in 2004, according to an article on commondreams.org, and have been steadily increasing ever since.

Sales figures indicate a 26 percent increase in hybrid sales from 2005 to 2006, which is part of a larger trend. The popularization of hybrid cars has come as a result of environmental issues, as well as gas prices. Currently the price for a barrel of crude oil is hovering around $100 per barrel, which has forced many people to alter their transportation routines and habits. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, for a hit to the wallet could also force new technology (which could help alleviate global warming) to the forefront.

Although many hybrid cars get 30 to 50 miles-per-gallon, there are other more efficient cars which have been developed by grant-based groups and private researchers. The most surprising article I came across was an article on SeattlePI.com entitled, “Hybrids, meet your rival — it gets 376.59 pg.” I was astounded before I even read the article; this can’t be true! Over 350 miles-per-gallon? That’s impossible!

It’s actually quite realistic. Although they tested this prototypical vehicle in 1973, the technology and construction method that makes it so efficient has not been integrated into modern cars. The car is incredibly simple, lacking all of the luxury features and ‘bells and whistles,’ which is probably why it wouldn’t be able to sell in America. To make the Opel car a road-safe vehicle, modifications would be needed, which would probably drop the miles-per-gallon rating down to 176.

How horrible! Oh wait, how…. amazing?

Most hybrids now get 50 to 60 m.p.g., and this is far more efficient. The man who now owns this car, Evan McMullen, says it best,

“Here’s a car that was 20 years old at the time of the contest that was the project of a couple of guys in a garage,” he said. “You can’t tell me we can’t do better than this with cars today.”

Well Mr. McMullen, there is a trendy, hip, space-age solution out there. It’s more modern looking and it gets 330 miles-per-gallon.

I’m talking about a car designed by Accelerated Composites of Carlsbad, California.

According to the article on theautochannel.com,

“The lightweight composite, hybrid car will post this fuel efficiency in normal city and highway driving and demonstrate acceleration and handling similar to that of a Honda Insight. Dubbed the Aptera(C), the vehicle achieves these remarkable numbers through the use of cutting-edge materials, manufacturing methods, and a maverick design mantra.”

The key to the vehicle lies in its lightweight construction and smooth aerodynamics. Although I wouldn’t be seen driving around in an ‘Aptera,’ I could possibly envision a time in the near future when people would be. Heck, with oil prices increasing every day, why not invest in something that could actually do some good for your wallet as well as the environment.

Now I’m sure you’ve used the public transportation system in a major city like New York, Los Angeles, Boston or Phoenix. Although Phoenix is currently lacking a rail system (for the time being), you’ve probably hopped on the ‘Flash’ or ‘Orbit’ buses and vans. They aren’t aesthetically pleasing, but they’ll get you there. Larger cities like New York and Boston have extensive transit systems composed of buses, subways, and above-ground rail systems. In recent years people have been encouraged to use public transportation to help combat global warming.

An article on the Sierra Club’s website blog highlighted the issue,

A new study released today shows if a solo commuter of a household switches their daily driving and uses public transportation then he or she can reduce their household carbon footprint by 10 percent. If one household’s driver gives up that second car and switches to public transit, a household can reduce its carbon emissions up to 30 percent.

Obviously, 30 percent is a huge number. This would certainly help curtail United States carbon emissions and aid in the crusade for the environment. The question is: How realistic is this goal? Obviously people living in urban areas have much more immediate access to public transportation than those who don’t, but what about people who live in suburban and rural areas?

The answer lies in not only increased use of public transportation, but also in the energy sources this transportation uses. According to statistics from the United States Department of Energy, the United States produces roughly 79 percent of its energy from fossil fuel sources. Although many rail systems and some vehicular systems run on electric power, the power comes originally from the power grid itself. With 79 percent of the country’s energy being produced by fossil fuel sources, the benefit of electric public transportation systems is somewhat negated.

The answer is to phase out fossil fuel sources in lieu of renewable energy sources as well as nuclear power. An interesting and innovative power plant has been developed near Phoenix, AZ by Arizona Public Service and Greenfuel Technologies Corporation.

A press release on the APS website outlines the operation of the prototypical plant,

At the Redhawk Power Plant, specially designed pipes captured and transported the CO2 emissions coming out of the stack. The gas was then transferred to specialized containers holding hungry algae. Algae are unicellular plants and, like all plants, they divide and grow using the process known as photosynthesis. In the presence of sunlight, algae consume CO2.

Rather than one miracle answer to the looming energy question, there seems to be a combination of different methods. The power plant utilizes microorganisms to help recycle CO2 waste, and although it still burns fossil fuels it is much more environmentally-friendly.

We need to replace our aging, atmosphere-choking, fossil fuel-burning plants with more environmentally friendly plants if we are going to overcome the global warming problem. The plant in Arizona is a good start,  and hopefully the technology spreads quickly. If the slow-moving action of the oil companies is any indicator, it could be a while before we see any change.

Everyone in the Southwest knows that there is no shortage of sunlight, but there will soon be a shortage of fossil fuel.

According to an article in Scientific American,

“Well-meaning scientists, engineers, economists and politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These steps are not enough. The U.S. needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us that a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer”

I couldn’t agree more. Our situation is beyond dire, we need immediate change. Our dependence on foreign oil leaves us vulnerable to fluctuations in reserves and prices, as well as conflict. Politicians and well-doers aren’t doing enough. Throughout human history it has taken strife and suffering to cause immediate change, and unless we drastically change our ways we are in for a rough road.

I can’t understand why politicians haven’t advocated the use of alternative fuels. I can’t understand why there isn’t a deadline for transferring our power source to alternative energies like solar, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric and geothermal power. We are killing our environment, depleting our wallets, and setting ourselves up for conflict sometime in the near future.

Growing countries like China and India have an increasing need for energy, and consequently fossil fuels. We need to become energy independent to avoid conflict with these nations, as they will be seeking the same fossil-fuel resources we are currently consuming.

An article on the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security website (IAGS) explains the danger,

China’s expectation of growing future dependence on oil imports has brought it to acquire interests in exploration and production in places like Kazakhstan, Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, West Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Canada. But despite its efforts to diversify its sources, China has become increasingly dependent on Middle East oil. The most likely and plausible source of alternative energy would be solar.

The most likely and plausible sources for the alternative energy would be solar and nuclear. Solar power is much more environmentally friendly than nuclear, and with technological advances in solar panel construction it is becoming cheaper.

Once further advances are made in the actual storage of solar power, it will become much more appealing. Currently, the best storage system is compressed air, which isn’t the most efficient way to store solar energy. Photo voltaic energy can directly help to alleviate the strain on the nation’s power grid.

The options are many, but we need to pick one and change before it’s too late.