As it stands right now, I believe that there are five things that can be implemented by 2010 that will significantly impact the nation’s dependence on oil (and not just foreign oil). None of these are easy by any means. I do not claim that these will make us oil independent or that they are, by themselves, enough. They merely start us down a long path.

1. Reestablish a national speed limit. In 1973, the National Maximum Speed Limit (public law 93-239) briefly penalized states that refused to set their maximum speed limits to 55mph (88 km/h) by withholding funds for transportation projects. The law was fully repealed in 1995, allowing states to set their own speed limits. Something like the National Maximum Speed Limit must be reestablished, either at 55mph (88km/h) or 60mph (96km/h).
2. Prohibit the sale of noncommercial vehicles that attain less than 30 miles/gallon in the city. This is a radical step and would immediately eliminate the sale of certain vehicles (such as the Hummer) that do far more harm than good to our environment. It would force innovation in the automotive market. Savings in the oil supply and the pocketbook of many American households would be seen within a year. Vehicles used for commercial purposes would be exempt, with some form of documentation required for commercial use.
3. Require cities to increase residential and commercial population density. By creating more walkable neighborhoods and locating homes near businesses and jobs, the need for any sort of local transportation can virtually disappear.
4. Require federal and municipal building construction nationwide to meet LEED Silver standards or better. The U.S. Green Building Council established the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system for buildings that wish to be certified as energy efficient or using sustainable resources. Washington State has taken a step in this direction with Executive Order 04-06. This would include both new construction and remodels.
5. Significantly advance funding for the implementation of alternative energy projects. Research is not enough. We know that some of these sources of energy are not only viable but sustainable over the long term. We must implement methods of utilizing these alternative energy resources on a local and regional scale.

There are a number of other things that could very easily be done, and a number of other paths that could be followed. These represent the ideas that I find most imperative for the survival of our current culture and way of life. I intend to expand on a couple of these items in later posts, so stay tuned.

Jon Landsbergis wrote into the New York Times regarding the wind farm proposed for the south shore of Long Island. This was a fairly short piece, but there was a paragraph that struck me as being very interesting:

Neither the wind farm nor any other energy source should get a blank check for development, and affluent areas should not be allowed to use their political influence to stop wind farms. But let’s balance the cost of not developing new sources with the cost of war.

– “Wind Power and War“, New York Times, July 16, 2006

Mr. Landsbergis is absolutely correct: no energy source should get a blank check for development. We must spend time exploring those alternatives. Hydrogen, fuel cells, wind power, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, solar power, geothermal power, tidal power, wave power, biomass power – all of these should be explored, but we cannot accept only one. All these sources will have a significant amount of debate encompassing them, and some of them certainly will be dismissed as inviable, but we cannot simply wave our hands and magically make them disappear. We must consider each on their own local merits. Energy sources that work for New Jersey may not work for Colorado or Oregon.

The House of Representatives recently passed a bill requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to research energy-efficient servers for use in data centers worldwide. There are very practical reasons for doing such a thing, not the least of which is increasing the overall efficiency of servers themselves and possibly decreasing the overhead needed to create a dedicated data center. Since most servers tend to run constantly, it’s fairly hard to tweak their power performance – however, this is reasonably easy with most home machines (which H.R. 5646 doesn’t reference). Easy, simple ways of doing so include:

• Turn off your computer and associated machinery when not in use. This is particularly doable in home environments, though offices may find this a little troublesome depending on maintenance schedules. Turning off your modem and other accessories when not in use or when leaving home for a long period of time can help decrease your energy bill.
• Adjust your power settings. Most operating systems allow the user to allow the display or hard drive to shut off after a certain length of time. This is useful whether using a desktop or a laptop.
• Don’t buy a computer that doesn’t fit your needs. Some specialty systems (such as those for gaming) are created with faster components, which can frequently require more energy to run. Choose a machine that’s right for the tasks you intend to use it for. You typically can use a slower computer for just word processing than you can for graphics design, for instance.

Washington just passed a new electronics recycling law that came into effect July 1st, requiring manufacturers to offer free recycling options for certain types of electronics, so this is an interesting time to look at different state web sites for recycling in general.  Take a look at the Environmental Protection Agency’s Municipal Solid Waste links. I found it interesting that some states (New Hampshire, for instance) have no centralized recycling program.

The Electronic Industries Alliance also has a site geared specifically towards finding electronics recycling information.

There is something about the topic of energy and the continuity of our way of life in the United States that politicians turn a blind eye to. However, this is a bigger problem than simple political myopia. The problem’s scope extends not only to United States political figures, but to the very citizenry. I believe that education is key, but is not enough. To convince, you must live as you want others to live. It is not enough to tell; you must do.

Of course, you can read rhetoric and diatribes about the state of our environment without ever taking a single step. You can even write such rhetoric yourself without ever taking a single step, particularly if you are a well-trained and well-practiced writer. I will admit my bias as a recent graduate of The Evergreen State College, which some find synonymous with the environmental movement. I learned about sustainability as a freshman and haven’t quite been able to let the topic go. It is simply too important at this time in our lives, at the beginning of a new century where “being wired” is the only way to be considered socially correct. We are beginning to see a new generation of children who grew up with technology, who have far better grasp of it than our parents and grandparents (and perhaps even we) ever will.

How do we address this? What does it take to make environmental awareness and stewardship a reality? Where is the current energy policy of the United States lacking, and how do we change it for the better? There are many questions, and the only way to find answers that will satisfy all of us is to collaborate. My aim by writing here is to facilitate and empower that collaboration, though I know this is not enough on its own. Of course, I will not claim to be unbiased; rather, I simply claim to be observant. Through my observations here, I hope to start something. What that is, I don’t yet know.