So it's a question long overdue in the asking: Will President-elect Obama be able to enact his ambitious plans for energy independence in the midst of a financial meltdown?

We here at The Thin Green Line polled our extensive staff -- including field researchers, laboratory assistants and policy wonks -- and concluded the answer to that question will depend as much on the man as the circumstances.

But since the man is not even in office yet, and because we won't fully know what kind of president he is until he is president, over-stuffed with turkey as we are, we have decided to confine our effort today to examining the circumstances.

This in and of itself is no small task as, like the issues, they are complex.

It was going to be hard enough to wean Americans off the easy and familiar energy sources of oil and coal in the best of circumstances.

Add to that the tension, fear and volatility of a collapsing economy and "hard" just went to "harder."

How to you jumpstart a new energy matrix when the financial resources required just got flushed down the proverbial de-regulation toilet?

Oddly, it seems, this question makes stark the observation that the world is full of basically two kinds of people, optimists and pessimists or, in this case, entrepreneurs and bean counters.

The bean counter argument is not hard to imagine and has many good points to its credit, not the least of which is "is now the time to invest what little money is available for lending in an untested industry?"

This is being seen already as it relates to wind power, hence our symbolic windmill photo at the top of the page.

Initially, the fastest growing of the major green energy initiatives -- the others being solar, ethanol and, to a lesser extent, geo-thermal -- wind power is now suffering from the collapse of its financial backers, like Lehman Brothers.

As this article in The Christian Science Monitor indicates, projects already underway in wind-rich places like Wyoming and Michigan are now becalmed by a lull that has nothing to do with wind-speed.

"Financing for wind projects is likely to shift more to deep-pocketed utilities and other companies far from Wall Street – including big foreign companies searching for a foothold in the United States," the now solely on-line newspaper reported. "Until this fall, plowing billions into new wind farms from North Dakota to Texas to California had been the epitome of renewable-energy investing for hedge funds and big banks."

Once, the second-fastest growing source of electricity generation after natural gas, wind has hit the perfect storm: Falling fossil fuel prices, especially in natural gas, rising steel prices and a paucity of investors.

And there is another, more integral matter with which green energy must contend in the electrical arena -- the infrastructure itself.

It's not enough to just build graceful wind farms across the plains and stand back to admire our tardy-but-necessary initiative.

The power grid that must carry those busy electrons from the plains to the cities is already seriously over-taxed and not designed for the task at hand.

A recent report by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation notes that switching over to more wind and solar power plants without upgrading the transmission capacity would result in more blackouts and less reliability -- not the kind of thing on which a thriving, high-tech economy is built.

And, as this report in The New York Times makes clear, the issue puts two green constituencies as odds.

"The report calls for construction of new power lines, which has become more difficult in some regions because of the diminished clout of utilities and the growing strength of preservationists trying to protect rural areas. "

Just such an effort is underway here in eastern Pennsylvania and is meeting with stiff resistance.

Even potential measures to ease this pressure, like voluntary shut-downs in exchange for price breaks, will not be enough to alleviate the shortage of transmission capacity however.

All of which brings us to the optimists or, as we fashioned them earlier, the entrepreneurs.

Some of the nation's most successful entrepreneurs succeed by seeing opportunity in difficulty, solving new problems in new ways.

Not being entrepreneurs here at The Thin Green Line (where wage slavery crushes our inner creative capitalist on a daily basis) we cannot propose those solutions, only have faith that they exist and that those so inclined will be able to find them.

One way to encourage them, argue some, is for a President Obama to enact a "Green New Deal" and use what financial fortitude the U.S. Government has left to support those efforts.

"Such a Green New Deal, woven into the economic stimulus package being crafted for early next year, could create millions of government-subsidized jobs and build a new energy infrastructure," The Boston Globe reported in this Nov. 24 article.
"It's a smart thing to do for the economy and a strategically wonderful thing to do for the environment," said David Foster, executive director of the Blue Green Alliance, a partnership between the Sierra Club and United Steelworkers that works to develop green jobs. His group points to a University of Massachusetts report earlier this fall that said a $100 billion investment in clean technology could create 2 million new jobs in the next two years. "It leads us down the path for energy independence. It's a historic opportunity," he told the newspaper.

Supporters of Obama's $150 billion energy plans, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council, say such a plan could include federal financial incentives to quickly build large-scale solar, wind, and other renewable projects. It could also include massive investment in new transmission lines to bring renewable power from rural areas into cities, creating a new electricity grid, according to the Globe.

But it won't be easy. Any reduction in carbon emissions from coal-fired plants are likely to raise electricity prices at a time when deregulation is already set to do that, at least in Pennsylvania, just when most consumers can't afford it. That will make it politically unpopular, requiring an effort to educate the country on why its necessary.

“In times of economic stress, the last thing you want to do is increase peoples’ energy costs with something like cap-and-trade,” Anne Korin, cofounder of the Set America Free Coalition (SAFC) of energy-security hawks and environ­mentalists, told The Christian Science Monitor in this Nov. 12 article which examines Obama's plans in some detail.

"SAFC calls for policies that would disconnect the US from imported oil. 'There’s a lot of talk about that, but a congressman who wants to be reelected would be very wary of that,' Ms. Korin says."

If you ask him if he can do it, Obama would likely say it is not him, but all of us that must accomplish this. "Yes WE can" was the mantra of his campaign.

But with the campaign over and his presidency looming, he must also recognize that while we may indeed be able to do it, we won't be able to do it without him.

Did you know that if you buy a hybrid vehicle, you can get a $500 rebate from the State of Pennsylvania?

State Rep. Bob Mensch (R-147th) wants to make sure you know and so, he sent me a press release to that effect.

Although flexible fuel and diesel fuel vehicles are not eligible (even though they should be), a list of specific vehicles that are is maintained by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

To be classified as a hybrid, they hace to have a combined MPG of more than 55 and they cannot emit more than seven tons per year of carbon dioxide.

The rebates are offered on a first-come, first-served basis until the money runs out.

I'm not sure how much is in there, but I know I got a check more than a year ago when I bought my Honda Civic hybrid.

To get your hands on the cash, you have to lease or purchase the vehicle new and complete a rebate form available on the DEP Web site.

For more information, or to view the full list, you can visit Mensch's Web site and click on "Hybrid Tax Credit."

If you truly want to get inside the mind of one of the world's most ruthless and silent killers, mark this Saturday, Nov. 22 on your calendar.

That's when Warwick County Park will host a nature program all about owls.

The program runs from 6 to 7:30 p.m. and will take place in the park office, 382 County Park Road, 3.5 miles west of the intersections of Route 100 and Route 23.

A slide show, mounts, pellets and two owls, a Great Horned Owl and a Screech Owl from the John James Audubon Center in Mill Grove will all be part of the program.

The program will conclude with a moonlit (and in all likelihood cold) walk along the forest edge with a guide calling in Pennsylvania Eastern Screech Owl in an attempt to see one hunding.

To register, which is required, call 610-469-1916 or to the www.chesco.org/ccparks and download a registration form. There is no charge.

The late great George Carlin had a bit that I always loved.

He mocked those environmentalists who insisted they were "saving the earth" through their efforts.

"The earth will be fine," he would say. "The earth used to be molten rock. For all we know, the earth created us just because it needed something added to the eco-system, maybe plastic."

He may have been joking, but every time I go to Jim Crater's Recycling Services Inc. in North Coventry, I wonder if maybe that old cynic Carlin wasn't right. We sure seem to have made a lot of the stuff.

Most of the recycling operation is pretty simple in my house.

The stuff that the borough collects at the curb goes in the bin under the sink. And the rest goes into my little recycling center in the basement.

I've saved a couple of large boxes to hold cardboard. We have batteries in one bag, aluminum foil in another and one for metal lids and such.

All the rest of our effort in house has to do with sorting and storing the 18 million different types of plastic.

When you think if recycling plastic, you think of the water and soda bottles, maybe the one that held your favorite apple sauce. The stuff that's easy to recycling and easy to find a market for.

But when you start to look for it, you find it's everywhere and in everything and it's the weird stuff that is hard to recycle. Luckily for this area, Jim Crater is relentless and resourceful and has found niche markets for all kinds of plastics.

If you have a child under 15, then you know that nothing you buy them, with the possible exception of organic vegetables, comes without one of those form-fitted plastic packages that requires a chainsaw to open.

(In fact, some manufacturers have finally gotten religion and are making an effort to make their packaging a little less intimidating, as was featured in this Nov. 15 New York Times article .)

With Christmas just around the corner, I've begun to hunt up my bolt cutters and hacksaw in preparation for the Christmas morning wrestling match with the plastic fortresses those damn elves put on everything.

Christmas coming is also why I had to go to RSI Tuesday. I had to make room for the new influx.

Which brings me to the inspiration for this little ditty -- Jennifer Mendez and Jess Henion, the two volunteers who are masters of all things plastic.

The key to an efficient trip to the recycling center is preparation. Separating the items before you get there makes things go smoothly and keeps you from getting underfoot with the people who run the place, literally, in their spare time.

But as much as I try, the plastics always get co-mingled. There are just too many types.

I've mastered the easy stuff: Straws, microwave dinner trays, screw caps, but then even they got tricky and I had to start separating the pull tabs from milk cartons and water bottle tops from the soda tops from the plastic tabs that keep bread bags closed.

I try to keep up, but recognizing the inevitable, my largest box is the one for when I just give-up and toss it in there with the weak-kneed rationalization that "I'll figure it out later."

The easiest thing to do when it comes time to make the trip is to pull out the largest volume of mixed plastics and "leave the rest for the next time."

In our house, that means the crinkly clear containers that are used for things like baked goods from Giant. When I'm in a rush (always) I can reduce the volume in the box by filling a giant garbage bag with just that.

But eventually, the big box has to be emptied and that's when I am truly at the mercy of Jennifer and Jess, two of the most merciful people I've met.

I am constantly amazed at the patience they exhibit as I (and a hundred other supplicants) bring tiny bits of mystery plastic to them, pleading to know what number it is so we can put it in the right bin.

It's an important skill because the companies Crater has lined up to take these plastics need the stock to be pure. All the sixes need to be sixes, and not have a random four or five mixed in, otherwise it can contaminate the load and we might not soon have a place to take these plastics any more, leaving us no choice but to send it to the landfill.

No matter what they're doing, Jennifer or Jess stop and conduct a series of their particular tests that seem to require all the senses but taste.

If they can, they'll crinkle it to hear what it sounds like, bend it to see if a particular tell-tale white stress line appears. My favorite is when they tap it lightly on the side of the bin and can tell by what kind of ping it makes.

I have yet to see them taste one, but I won't be too surprised if I see it one day.

They always try to explain the trick in the hope, no doubt a vain one in my case, that I'll remember and won't have to ask next time. But my brain is so porous these days that I can't even remember what they've said from minute to minute.

And yet, despite my asking of the same question over and over, something which would have my sarcasm gene working over-drive if I were in their shoes, these two princesses of the plastic perform the same test and try, patiently to teach it to the drooling idiot standing before them.

They both have the same quiet, deliberate manner and (they say I'm not the only one to remark on this) they're even starting to look alike.

I keep trying to pull obscure plastics (is there such a thing?) out of my bag of tricks to see if I can stump them, but I never succeed.

Instead, it's me that gets stumped, time and time again.

I don't know what I'd do without RSI's plastic mavens, but we're lucky to have them.

Maybe I should get them something for Christmas ... something wrapped in plastic.

Regular readers of this blog (yes both of you) know that in addition to having a thing for the environment, I have a thing for history.

Back on Sept. 12, in a blog titled The Historical Park Paradox, I wrote about the conflict between my desire to see a Revolutionary War Museum at Valley Forge Park, and concerns about the accompanying convention center and what might be destroyed by its construction.

Twelve days later, all 435 members of the House of Representatives obviously being regular readers of The Thin Green Line, the House passed two important battlefield protection bills furthering efforts to protect battlefields of the Revolutionary and Civil wars.

HR 2933, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Gary Miller, a Republican from California, reauthorizes the Civil War Battlefield Protection Program by extending it until FY 2013. Without the legislation, the program would have expired at the end of the federal fiscal year, Sept. 30.

According to The Trust for Public Land, "the program, administered by the National Park Service, is authorized to spend $10 million annually from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, subject to congressional appropriation, to protect Civil War battlefields that are located outside of the boundaries of existing national park units. According to House Report 110-792 accompanying the bill, $26.3 million in federal funds from the program have been leveraged with $52 million in non-federal funds to protect more than 15,700 acres at 72 Civil War battlefield sites. An identical measure, S 1921 was sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia. The program has broad bipartisan support in Congress, as 107 representatives and 32 senators from around the country have cosponsored the legislation."

Certainly this could be used in Pennsylvania's own Gettysburg National Park, where one in five acres is private owned.

And not to be Civil War-centric, a similar bill has also been proposed for the two warts that proceeded it.

HR 160, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, a Democrat from New Jersey, creates the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Program. The potential program is modeled after the Civil War Battlefield Protection Program.

Under the bill, state and local governments, in partnership with non-profit organizations, may apply to the National Park Service for one-to-one federal matching grants to acquire fee or easement interests in land to preserve battlefield sites related to the two wars.

Given that fact that much of the land around Valley Forge about which so much consternation is expressed is in private hands. This might be a vehicle to change that. Of course in this economy, with the state budget in tatters, finding funds could be next to impossible.

On the other hand, if funds were found it would be hard to find a better real estate market in which to buy.

The sites must be outside the boundaries of existing national park units and must be listed in a National Park Service study presented to Congress in September 2007.

This report was authorized by Congress back in 1996. Annual funding of $10 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, subject to congressional appropriation, is authorized until FY 2013.

The 2007 report to Congress identified 677 sites associated with the two wars. As many as 335 sites, nearly half of the total, were found to be lost, destroyed, or extremely fragmented.

According to House Report 110-796 accompanying the bill, "urbanization, suburban sprawl, and unplanned commercial and residential development have increasingly encroached upon these battlefield sites, threatening their historical integrity and even resulting in the loss of some sites altogether," according to the Trust for Public Land.

Both bills await action in the Senate.

Hmmmm, perhaps we shouldn't hold our breath...

Pictured at right is The Honda Clarity, a new hydrogen cell fuel car and the reason we the taxpayers are being asked to bailout the auto industry -- failure to innovate.

The Clarity offers the kinds of attributes that would make an advertising executive drool in the current economic climate -- "No emissions, 79 mpg and $600 a month."

If that isn't a recipe for success, I had better go back to riding a horse around town.

But there's a catch. (Isn't there always?) This slick looking model runs on hydrogen. Yes, that far-off technology that Detroit has been telling us can't possibly be designed, much less manufactured, without years of research and millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded incentives.

And yet, here we have it. Already researched, already manufactured and being test-marketed in the most receptive market of all, southern California.

It's called capitalism and the Japanese are kicking our asses at it. And frankly, we deserve the ass-kicking.

It's hard to imagine a more moribund, short-sighted, intellectually defunct or otherwise shiftless industry in America than the one based in Detroit.

America's former auto giants got that way by convincing Americans they wanted something they didn't need just as the words "disposable income" were becoming commonplace.

But once it came to interpreting the market instead of creating it and defining it, we fell behind. In other words, once car companies had to figure out what people wanted instead of telling them what they wanted, they lost their way.

Certainly, their success in making us believe we needed a converted pick-up truck with leather seats just to drive around town, convinced them they still had it. But it what they didn't realize is it was the last hurrah. When the price of running these SUV monsters became too much for even besotted Americans to stomach, Detroit just couldn't convince itself the honeymoon was over.

Which brings us to the present. At the worst possible time, when we would look to them to be a bulwark against what economists are now calling a world-wide recession, Detroit has its hand out.

As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, whose new book on the future is titled "Hot, Flat and Crowded," ranted in the Nov. 11 edition, "I could not help but shout back at the TV screen: We have to subsidize Detroit so that it will innovate? What business were you people in other than innovation? If we give you another $25 billion, will you also do accounting?"

Since I like to recycle everything, including good writing, allow me to let Mr. Friedman say for me what I couldn't say as well myself (besides, he's better paid): "Instead of focusing on making money by innovating around fuel efficiency, productivity and design, G.M. threw way too much energy into lobbying and maneuvering to protect its gas guzzlers."

In the meantime, Honda and Toyota were investing in innovation and while working to give us what we need, crafted designs that made us want them too.

As the Associated Press reported in its review: "the Clarity opens a window into the possible: the combination of environmental responsibility and zero emissions with a fun, hip ride. If only refueling was a matter of pulling into the nearest filling station."

But that's how it is with innovation. It doesn't spring fully formed from the brain of the entrepreneur into the market ready to go. You see the direction the market is taking, you make the investment and you (and your workers) reap the reward.

As Friedman wrote: "Not every automaker is at death’s door. Look at this article that ran two weeks ago on autochannel.com: ALLISTON, Ontario, Canada — Honda of Canada Mfg. officially opened its newest investment in Canada — a state-of-the art $154 million engine plant. The new facility will produce 200,000 fuel-efficient four-cylinder engines annually for Civic production in response to growing North American demand for vehicles that provide excellent fuel economy.”

(In a side note, if you're wondering why Canada got this plant and not us, take a look at who will be paying the health care costs for the workers of that new plant and then look at what is bankrupting GM: health care costs. Just a little food for thought.)

If, on the other hand, you are a struggling manufacturing giant in the electoral vote-rich Mid-west, innovation becomes something you deride from a distance while your Congressional delegation protects you from having to survive on your own, blocking government efforts to require improvements in fuel economy. And now the time has arrived to pay the piper for this lack of vision.

As CNN reports, "Congressional Democrats want the Treasury Department to offer the troubled automakers loans from an unspecified portion of the $700 billion bailout package originally passed to help the financial industry, which is reeling from the global credit crisis.
The White House and congressional Republicans have not signed on to support such a move.

The Republicans rightly point out that a $25 billion package to aid lawmakers has already been passed, but GM recently revealed that it is running out of cash and cannot survive the year without help.

The question becomes, is GM another company that is "too big to fail?" The answer is probably yes, not because it is deserving but because of what a GM collapse would do to a U.S. and world economy already on its knees and gasping.

CNN reports that "It is estimated that a GM bankruptcy alone would cascade widely throughout the economy and cost as many as 2.5 million jobs."

Some of those jobs will be in places like Pottstown, where the sole surviving auto parts plant, Dana, is already waiting to hear if it will be among the 10 plants and 2,000 jobs the company recently announced it would cut.

Time is running out as the news gets quickly and steadily worse. On Tuesday, General Motors stock continued to slide downward, reaching $2.92 a share, the lowest it has closed since April 1943. The company has also laid off 5,600 employees in less than a week.

And last week Ford announced that it has lost $3 billion dollars in the third quarter and was also planning to reduce its salaried and hourly workforce.

But if we are going to spend money to save the auto industry, let's remember whose money it is -- ours.

So the money should come with strings, lots of them. Not the least of which is to fire the entire management team (and maybe the enabling boards of directors as well) that got us into this mess and replace them with innovators who don't get paid million-dollar salaries if they don't succeed.

Set requirements for fuel economy, flex fuel, plug-in hybrids and all the things that may be the future.

Philosophically, we should let them sink or swim on their own. As Friedman pointed out recently on The Daily Show, right now there should be thousands of entrepreneurs in thousands of garages working on thousands of solutions, maybe three of which will end up working.

But practically, the country simply cannot afford, in the midst of an economic crisis, the collapse of an industry on which so much of its economy is built. And so we will be forced to reward what amounts to capitalistic malpractice.

As bitter as it may taste, the least we should insist upon is that our money be put toward investment in the right direction. At least then, we and our planet get something for our money.

So it turns out that people who hold nature in their heart have a good reason for doing so.

A recent major study announced in the British medical journal The Lancet, concludes that living near green space and open space can severely reduce the health gap exists between rich and poor people.

As noted in this article in Reuters, "parkland and open space make a difference by helping people get rid of stress and allowing more physical activity -- both of which reduce risk of heart disease.

"This is the first time we have demonstrated that aspects of the physical environment can have an impact in such a good way," one of the researchers said. "It is a combination of exercise and restoration."

I had long suspected that suburban sprawl have more negative effects than just on the physical end visual environment.

Now, I'll make my millions with a bumper sticker that reads "Sprawl Kills."

This weekend we will have "game night" at my house with two or three couples and their children.

When we bought our house, we fell in love with the beautiful hardwood floors so we haven't put down too many rugs.

So when the six or seven children go tearing throughout house, often yelling at the top of their lungs, the sound can be cacophonous.

And more than once, I have said aloud, "if only we could bottle that energy, we could solve the energy crisis.

Well damn if someone didn't go and do that -- sort of.

Leave it to the Dutch.

As this article in The New York Times shows, they did something ingenious. They figured out a way to harness all the energy from the stomping, gyrating and bouncing that goes on in a Euro-dance club and turn that mechanical energy back into electric energy.

Called, appropriately, "Clubb Watt," this Rotterdam club is partly party powered.

This from the Times article: At Watt, which describes itself as the first sustainable dance club, that electricity is used to power the light show in and around the floor. “For this first club, we thought it was useful for people to see the results,” said Michel Smit, an adviser on the project. “But if the next owner wants to use the electricity to power his toaster, it can do that just as well.”

Watt is in large part the creation of the Sustainable Dance Club, a quirky company formed last year by a group of Dutch ecological inventors, engineers and investors now headed by Mr. Smit.

More than a year in the making, Watt is a huge performance space with not just the sustainable dance floor, but also rainwater-fed toilets and low-waste bars. (Everything is recycled.) Its heat is harvested in part from the bands’ amplifiers and other musical equipment.

It's like a bizzare mixed clone of Danny Terrio and Ed Begley Jr.

Anyhoo, kudos to the Dutch for thinking outside the club. Maybe we really can innovate our way out of global warming.

Why do I suddenly hear The Bee Gees singing "You should be dancing yeah....?"

From left to right are Dr. Leah Joseph of Ursinus College and Mary DeAngelis, Matt Bergey and Matt Bornais of Royersford ElementarySchool

A Thin Green Line shout-out to teachers in the Spring-Ford School District who are teaching children about the causes of the climate change they will inherit.

Read all about it in this release from the Perkiomen Watershed Conservancy.

Three Spring-Ford Area School District teachers received a "Teaching Excellence" award from the Perkiomen Watershed Conservancy at the organization's annual Environmental Awards Banquet held Oct. 23rd at the Lakeside Inn in Limerick.

Mary DeAngelis, environmental education teacher, Matt Bergey, third-gradeteacher, and Matt Bornais, fourth-grade teacher, received the award along with Dr. Leah Joseph of Ursinus College for a project in which they taught students about the secrets of Antarctica.

A group of Royersford Elementary School students met for several weeks after school with the teachers to study climate change as it affects on Antarctica and learn from Dr. Joseph, who is also a scientist with the ANDRILL (Antarctic Geological Drilling) project.

The students made mock sediment cores, posters and floating ice models, all of which helped them learn more about Antarctica's terrain and climate.

The students then presented what they learned to others at a "Focus the Nation" event that was held at Ursinus College last February.

The team of teachers was nominated for the Perkiomen Watershed Conservancy award by Ursinus. They were honored at a ceremony at the end of October and received a plaque recognizing them for their accomplishment.

Talk about all global issues being local...

Three cheers for educators who are preparing our children for the world of the future.

While my generation may have been negligent in recognizing this phenomenon and acting on it, at least the next generation can hit the ground running.

So the election's over, your euphoria (or dismay) is evaporating and now you are faced with the most suddenly burdensome political issue you faced in months -- what the *&#k do we do with all the campaign signs?!

It is inevitable, in the days that follow, that The Mercury will begin to hear from readers in a variety of ways that "someone" needs to take care of all the campaign signs that litter the roadways, Route 422 in particular.

Most complainers argue that the signs should be the responsibility of the candidates and yes, they should. But the candidates didn't put them up and I doubt they'll take them down.

Assuming someone eventually does take them down, what to do with them?

For advice, allow The Thin Green Line to provide this link to Grist Magazine, which has some truly excellent suggestions:

Green ballot issues had mixed success Tuesday night. Here is a quick look.

Here in Pennsylvania, 2.8 million, or 61 percent of the people voting, supported the referendum seeking permission to borrow $400 million to pay for upgrades and repairs to aging sewer and water infrastructure.

"The $400 million bond issue will allow the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority, or PENNVEST, to award grants and loans for water treatment systems and pipelines. The money will be available for municipally owned drinking water and wastewater systems in every corner of the state, large or small, urban or rural," according to a release from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

The funding will be available to the 183 publicly owned water systems that are facing federal mandates to reduce nutrient pollution in the Susquehanna and Potomac river basins and in the Chesapeake Bay.

The Sustainable Infrastructure Task Force that Governor Rendell convened early this year released a report last week citing at least $36.5 billion in capital repairs and upgrade that are needed statewide over the next 20 years to maintain service. In addition, the task force estimates the commonwealth will need to spend another $77.1 billion for operation, maintenance and debt service. The report is available online at this link; click on the “Clean Water referendum” link.

"This is part of a larger national problem," said Rendell. "Across the country, we're confronted with a staggering total of national infrastructure shortfall of $1.6 trillion," he said in the release.

According to the Department of State Web site, the meassure passed with 59.6 percent of the vote in Berks County; 61.3 percent in Chester County and 68.2 percent in Montgomery County.

Also in Pennsylvania, Adams County approved a $10,000,000 Bond for the preservation of farmland, open space, habitat, and watersheds. It passed by 75% approval. And in Upper Saucon Township, voters approved a $24,000,000, 0.25 percent earned income tax increase for open space and recreational lands. It passed by 50% approval.

In California, two green initiatives were rejected by voters. Nearly two-thirds rejected a measure that would have required the state's utilities to generate half their electricity from windmills, solar systems, geothermal reserves and other renewable sources by 20205.

A second proposition, which would have floated a $5 billion bond to give rebates to Calinfornians who buy alternative fuel vehicles, as well as set aside money for research, was also defeated.

Also in Califnornia, a $9.95 billion project to pay for a high-speed train, passed by five percentage points.

However, in Missouri, voters approved a similar but less ambitious measure to the California question which will require the "show Me" state to produce 15 percent of its electricity from clean energy in 20201.

And in Florida, voters approved a measure that will allow homeowners to install renewable energy devices on their property without changing its value for tax purposes.

In Colorado, a measure that would have ended tax credits for the oil and gas industries, adding $300 million a year to state coffers, was defeated when the industry spent $11 million in an advertising blitz to defeat it, The Denver Post reported.

The tax break is so effective that 81 percent of the companies for a tax refund in 2004. The new money would have been used to college scholarships for families who make less than $100,000 a year.

A $3.4 million ballot measure in Maine to pay for water projects passed by a slim margin.

The people have spoken.

So I've been a bad blogger -- again.

Not just because apparently I'm writing about subjects no one wants to read about, but because for too long I have ignored an actual reader. They are so few these days.

I am referring to Rob Latch of New Hanover. In September, he wrote me the following note to the gmail account that accompanies this blog (brandt.evan@gmail.com) and it raises an interesting subject as the colder months come creeping in.

His full note appears below:

Not sure where you live but in my area the "wood burning outdoor fireplace" is out of control. I am a prisoner in my house and even with windows closed (if I'm lucky enough to be home) I can't get relief from this pollution. Where are the "mad mothers" when you need them?

We ban people from smoking outdoors, and bars but allow these things to pollute.

Some facts from burningissues.org

-Largest single source of outdoor fine particles.

-As many as 60,000 US residents may die from breathing particulate at or below legal levels.

-2.7-3 million premature deaths due to wood smoke.

-Wood smoke contains over 200 chemicals and compound groups.

-EPA estimates lifetime cancer risk from wood stove smoke is 12 times greater than from equal volume of second hand smoke.

The web site lists many unbelievable statistics. In my area this problem is magnified if there is a temperature inversion with little or no wind. After an evening of campfires the smell lingers through the next day and my house smells like I've been camping.

I am not an environmental scientist but if I can't even breathe outside this can't be good for me. Rob Latch

This is honestly something I had not given much thought to until Rob wrote.

In the old house where I grew up, my parents had a new fireplace put in and I loved the nights when we had fires and sat around reading. I appointed myself the "keeper of the flame" and tended the fire with varying degrees of success.

Rob is right though. More recently, these outdoor fire pits, often called "chimineas," have become wildly popular. I have friends in Amity who have one and we sat out one right and looked at the stars while the familiar smell of wood smoke colored the mood.

But once again, the green sensibility intrudes on something that seemed harmlessly innocent....sigh.



As with most things green, however, it's not a simple yes or no, good or bad.



Consider this Oct. 21 article in The Christian Science Monitor that talks about the sudden surge in households using wood to heat their homes in the face of sky-rocketing fossil fuel prices.



(In my house, we managed to lock in an oil price just before the bottom dropped out. Ah the joys of homeownership.)



The paper, which recently announced it will no longer publish a hard copy edition, and will publish only on the Internet, reported that "Sales of wood stoves are up 55 percent so far this year over last, according to industry figures. And sales of wood pellet stoves are even hotter: up 135 percent over the same period last year."



Consider this from the CSM:



"Even the very cleanest-burning and best-maintained wood or pellet stoves release a much higher level of emissions than a typical oil furnace, a common heating fuel in the Northeastern US. Natural gas, the most popular heating fuel nationwide, burns even cleaner than oil.

Wood smoke 'is a fairly toxic cocktail,' says Lisa Rector, a senior policy analyst for NESCAUM, a nonprofit group that advises eight Northeastern US states on air-pollution control issues.



"According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), wood smoke contains a number of potent health hazards, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and fine particulates. The American Lung Association estimates that in some locales fireplaces and wood stoves are the source of 80 percent of the fine particulates found in the air."



But these new modern wood-burning stoves are not your grandfather's old pot-bellied stove.



"Since the early 1990s the EPA has mandated that new wood stoves emit no more than 7.5 grams of emissions per hour, though many models have been tested with much lower emissions. Stoves manufactured in the 1970s and ’80s emitted about 42 grams per hour," the paper reported.



"Because of its pollutants, wood-burning in general is most appropriate “at the urban fringe and beyond,” not in cities, which are already dealing with many other sources of air pollution, says John Gulland, co-founder of woodheat.org, a nonprofit website that aims to offer impartial information about firewood and wood-burning stoves."



Of course, this does not address Rob's question directly, but it does illustrate a point I've made repeatedly in dealing with environmental issues -- nothing is simple.

As for the chimeas, as I understand it, here in the borough of Pottstown, you are only allowed to burn them if you are using them to cook, which seems an unlikely as they are not easily given to that.

But out in places like New Hanover, which Rob described in a later e-mail as the "land of developments," there are probably few restrictions, and any restrictions that are in place likely h ave to do with fire safety, not air safety.

In addition to selecting candidates who have "pro-green" policies on Tuesday, voters across the country (including here in Pennsylvania) will also be able to vote on those green policies themselves.

In Pennsylvania, the ballot referendum asks voters for permission to borrow $400 million to improve water and sewer infrastructure.

The bond, if passed, would be in addition to the $800 million the 2008 budget already authorized to upgrade plants, primarily in the watersheds that drain into the struggling Chesapeake Bay.

The economy being what it is these days, the issuance of those bonds was put on hold last month because of the state of the bond market.

But that didn't keep Gov. Ed Rendell from promoting the issue during a campaign stop in Pottstown on Saturday.

The state government estimates Pennsylvania has a $36.5 billion need over the next 20 years to repair and upgrade water and wastewater systems. The state has 2,200 water systems and 1,100 sewage treatment systems.

Some taxpayer watchdog groups are urging voters to reject the measure because of the increased debt load it will place on Pennsylvanians.

But Matthew J. Brouillette, president and CEO of the conservative Commonwealth Foundation
which opposes the measure, nonetheless predicted: "Most likely, voters will overwhelmingly approve this measure, just as they have in the past," he said, making specific reference to the $625 million for Growing Greener II in 2005.

Given that most sewer systems in established towns dump sewage, treated to various levels of cleanliness, into rivers that also serves as drinking water sources; and given that most of those towns, like Pottstown, are cash-strapped, it certainly seems like a better thing to spend money on than say, a new sports stadium.

But Pennsylvania is not alone in putting green questions to voters this Tuesday.

According to this article in USA Today, several states are asking green questions and many of them, have to do with promoting renewable energy sources.

According to the paper, three states have renewable energy questions on the ballot.

Missouri's initiative would require investor-owned utilities to buy or produce 15% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. It has broad support and no organized opposition, the paper reported.

Not so in California where an initiative that would require utilities to get half their power from renewable resources by 2025, setting the toughest standard in the nation, has drawn much opposition. Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, and both political parties say it has too many loopholes.

Another California proposal would authorize $5 billion in bonds to give rebates for alternative-fuel vehicles and to promote renewable energy.

And a measure in Colorado would increase taxes on the oil and gas industry and use 10% of the revenue to promote energy efficiency and renewable sources. The oil and gas industry opposes it.

It will be interesting to see if the recent downturn in the economy will convince voters to pull back from measures which may cost them money in the near future, but save them money in the long run.

But given the nature of the presidential race, don't expect any screaming headlines on the subject until the dust settles.