However this is just the beginning.  Forming in September, the next round of $1.5 trillion in cuts would be decided by a committee of 12 lawmakers evenly divided between the two parties and two chambers. This so-called “super Congress” would have to present its cuts by Thanksgiving, and the rest of Congress could not amend or filibuster the recommendations.

BUT:  if the super Congress somehow failed to enact savings, the measure requires automatic cuts worth at least $1.2 trillion. Those cuts would be split equally between military and domestic programs. Social Security, Medicaid and programs for the poor would be spared, but Medicare providers — not beneficiaries — would take a hit.

Let’s face it, this is nothing but a “Super Cop-out”.  Based on what we saw over these last few months, why should we think that this “Super Congress”  will get ANYTHING  done?  6 Republicans and 6 Democrats agreeing on how to cut spending?  Get real.  Boehner already said he will not appoint anyone for this committee that is pro tax (er, I mean “revenue”).  Obama still thinks he can get some tax revenue.  No way.  So, let’s just go ahead and ASSUME they will resume their infantile bickering and  fail.   Then, “Plan B” goes into effect.

Plan B will gut domestic spending -  read: minimal spending/investment in our infrastructure (dams, levees, etc.), government oversight of industry (i.e., Wall Street and their corporate friends that love to pollute),  and anything else that has to do with maintaining our life support system (i.e., Earth).

So who gets the real hit?  Once again, our Mother Earth takes it on the chin.  Goodbye life support system, you’ve been great.

One has to wonder how legal this thing is anyway?  The congress forms a forth branch of government to make decisions because our legislative branch is incapable of doing so?   So our representatives can go home to their constituents and say “hey, it’s them, the committee, not me making these unpopular choices”.    Our founding fathers have to be spinning in their graves (or laughing their asses off).  Can anyone say “dysfunction”?

The Car Allowance Rebate System is a US federal program that helps US citizens to purchase a new, more fuel efficient vehicle when trading in a less fuel efficient vehicle.

Thousands of Americans are rushing out and trading in their old cars to receive a $3500 or $4500 discount towards the purchase of select new cars. This may sound great at first but there are many hidden facts the majority of the population may not be aware of.

• The program is designed to get old cars up to 25 years old with under 18 MPG off the road and replace them with brand new cars that have a higher MPG rating.
• Depending on the age of the vehicle you will ether qualify for $3500 or $4500 off of the purchase price of the new car.
• The old car must have been owned, registered, and insured for the past year.
• The dealer is required to disable the old cars engine by draining the oil and replacing with a water and silica solution, permanently destroying the engine.
• The old car must the crushed and the engine and drivetrain cannot be sold for parts, this prevents the sale of the car in the United States and elsewhere as a vehicle.

Many of the cars being turned in as “Clunkers” to this program are still perfectly fine and are being turned in just so the owner can get a new car, but because the car is required to be destroyed hundreds maybe even thousands of cars are being destroyed. But is this really the best way to get people to buy new cars? Why go to the effort to destroy perfectly fine cars that may only be 4-5 years old.

Let’s say all the cars that went to the program that were newer then say 1998 were taken into a low income car program, helping get the “real clunkers” off the road.

It could work as follows:

• The total household income is less then a certain level.
• Each household would qualify for only one vehicle trade.
• The traded vehicle must need more then $500 in repairs to qualify.
• The car must be less then 35 years old, but mileage does not matter.
• The car must be owned for the last year but is not required to be registered or smogged.

This would help get the “real clunkers” and unsafe cars off the road and help clean up the roads. But why was this not the way the Cash for Clunkers program was designed? We can only guess that it has to do with the fact that the Government has recently bailed out both GM and Chrysler. By requiring people to purchase a new vehicle they are protecting there investments.

Another theory about why they don’t want to have a low income program is “Keep Them Stupid and Poor” consperacy that has been floating around the internet. I think the government has been brainwashing the population, there is so many stupid laws and programs right now and the majority of the population appears to be going along with it.

I see this first hand as I am an unemployed, student. Like many others I have been in search of a job for many months, but because of the current economy there has been very little interest. Another major issue is the cut to education budgets, just this summer I had a class I was attending get canceled after the first week was over because they were two people short of the twenty person quota. I feel that as an American I am not getting what I should, if I pay my taxes I should be able to use that money, and I feel it unfair to allow this program to only benefit the people capable of making monthly car payments. What about the rest of the population?

The big difference from other “hybrid” cars such as the “Prius”, is that propulsion is expected to be from the battery the majority of the time.  The battery can sustain travel for up to 40 miles, more than enough for most drivers daily needs (80% of Americans drive less than 40 miles in a day).  If needed, a gas engine is on-board as well, and by functioning as as a generator (a “GenSet”), it can increase the range for up to another 200 miles.    For the majority of Americans, that would mean eliminating gasoline for ever! 

Bob Lutz, GM’s 76-year-old vice chairman for global product development, and the force behind the project, say’s he’s shooting for a sales price of “$40,000 or less”.

Oh well, you can always wait for the end-of-year sale.

William Yuan, from Portland, Oregon, has a better idea.  A recent science project he developed, entitled “A Highly-Efficient 3-Dimensional Nanotube Solar Cell for Visible and UVLight,” William invented a novel solar panel that enables light absorption from visible toultraviolet light. He designed carbon nanotubes to overcome the barriers of electron movement, doubling the light-electricity conversion efficiency. William also developed a model for solar towers and a computer program to simulate and optimize the tower parameters. His optimized design provides 500 times more light absorption than commercially-available solar cells and nine times more than the cutting-edge, three dimensional solar cell.

William probably put this project together using funds from his paper route.  Just think what we could do if Big Oil put even 1% of their profits into alternative energy research!   Rock on William, you are a true American. 

“There’s a real dilemma facing operators of coal powered plants,” said John O’Donnell, Ausra’s Executive Vice President. “The price of coal has exploded recently and it continues to rise rapidly. Long-term coal contracts are coming in at 4 times the price of the last iteration of the contract.”

Australia recently ratified the Kyoto Protocol and will begin trading carbon in about a year. Carbon is likely to trade for $30-$60 per ton, according to John O’Donnell. Ausra’s solar thermal retrofits are cost effective around $30 a ton.

“$30 a ton is $.03 a kilowatt hour [for electricity generated from coal],” said John O’Donnell. “For some of the older coal power plants, you are looking at a 30, 40, or 50% increase in the electricity price [due to coal's carbon output] all at once and an ongoing uncertain future.”

To their credit, Bank of America, Chase, and Citigroup are now considering climate change and carbon emissions among the risks in lending to money for electric power plant projects, so borrowing money for such projects may cost more for power generation options that result in a large carbon footprint.  This provides added incentive for local and federal governments to look towards clean and renewable energy sources.

“As the highly competitive fuels marketing business in the U.S. continues to evolve, we believe this transition is the best way for ExxonMobil to compete and grow in the future,” said Ben Soraci, U.S. director of retail sales for ExxonMobil.

Sorry Ben, I don’t buy it. Big Oil has been making record profits, have have more money floating around than they know what to do with. I realize that the retail end is different from the “manufacturing” component, but gas stations as a loosing proposition? I doubt it.

To me, this is good news. I think the big oil boys see something coming they don’t like, and want to get rid of their stations before a “certain something” is mandated by the Feds, or virtually “demanded” by market forces. I hope this “certain something” is something like: compressed air refill stations, hydrogen refill stations, and or biofuel pumps. Wouldn’t that be fantastic?

the United States by late 2009 or early 2010, and better yet, it is expected to be for sale for less than $18k. One of the planned Air Car models, reaches 68 mph, and goes for a range of 125 miles. It will take only a few minutes to refuel at gas stations equipped with custom air compressor units, and it should cost only around $2 to fill the car up with 340 liters of air!

Hmmmm. You know the saying, “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”. I can’t help but wonder what energy expenditure is required to compress the air. Electricity, I suppose, so that opens up that can of worms. But, hey, any candle is a bright light in total darkness. Lets keep our fingers crossed that this is real, and the developers of this technology don’t get run over (literally) by big oil. Rock on folks, and be sure to check under your hood before starting your car in the morning. Watch the video on the next page…

The Compressed Air Car developed by Motor Development International (MDI) Founder Guy Negre might be the best thing to have happened to the motor engine in years.

The $12,700 CityCAT, one of the planned Air Car models, can hit 68 mph and has a range of 125 miles. It will take only a few minutes for the CityCAT to refuel at gas stations equipped with custom air compressor units. MDI says it should cost only around $2 to fill the car up with 340 liters of air!

The Air Car will be starting production this year, thanks to India ‘s TATA Motors.

Once again the “infrastructure” becomes the stumbling block. I can’t help but wonder where all those extraordinary profits are going within big oil. It seems, if our government so chose, that they could mandate that at least a percentage of windfall profit be reinvested in infrastructure. My guess is that it wouldn’t take long to have an air compressor installed in every gas station in the US. Meanwhile we take it in the ear by paying $4 or more per gallon.

10 GREEN HERESIES

Live in Cities:
Urban Living Is Kinder to the Planet Than the Suburban Lifestyle

A/C Is OK:
Air-Conditioning Actually Emits Less C02 Than Heating

Organics Are Not the Answer:
Surprise! Conventional Agriculture Can Be Easier on the Planet

Farm the Forests:
Old-Growth Forests Can Actually Contribute to Global Warming

China Is the Solution:
The People’s Republic Leads the Way in Alternative-Energy Hardware

Accept Genetic Engineering:
Superefficient Frankencrops Could Put a Real Dent in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carbon Trading Doesn’t Work:
Carbon Credits Were a Great Idea, But the Benefits Are Illusory

Embrace Nuclear Power:
Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy

Used Cars — Not Hybrids:
Don’t Buy That New Prius! Test-Drive a Used Car Instead