Jessica's Environmental Law Problem

So, Jessica and I were talking about some of the research projects in my field that are located in Louisiana. Obviously, if I get the chance while I am at Fort Polk, I am going to try to get a 1-2 month internship to go there and follow on some of their studies. Especially the one concerning the invigorating the soils in the flatlands.

However, during that discussion, She posed a problem the should be answered by politicians and Lobbyists alike. They are all based on the premise that energy consumption is, in fact, contributing significantly to global warming. And on the assumption (scientifically proven, I might add) that if left unchecked, global warming could lead to catastrophic consequences for the world's population.

1. If we have the technology to produce energy efficient windows and appliances, why are the noncompliant ones so much cheaper?

2. Why do we have the technology to produce cars, like the Prius, that average 45 mpg, but it is still cheaper to get a car that averages 16?

Because the poor outnumber the other social brackets, and often, the only thing they can afford is the cheaper item, even though they will pay the difference within a couple years in heightened power bills (and power consumption). Let's go a step further and ask, if we know these things are contributing to a global problem, why is it still legal to sell them at all. I get a ticket for not wearing my seat belt, but the corporations get away unfettered for causing irreparable damage at an exponential rate.

I once had the idea of attempting to launch an initiative via petition. The initiative would have called for a 15 ¢ tax for fuel, to be used in the construction of wind turbines and other, truly green energy technologies, as well as research for conversion kits for heritage vehicles to use alternative fuels and alternative fuels did not produce twice as much carbon as gas (corn-based ethanol). Perhaps even to purchase or subsidize farms that could produce sugarcane-based ethanol. And also to began reforestation projects. It was a noble idea, because I accept that if I want to see change, that change carries a price tag and, unfortunately, as a taxpayer, I have to foot the bill. However, I would want the proceeds of the tax to be transparent and itemized as a matter of record for any taxpayer to reference.

On a less somber note, Jessica saw a t-shirt she wants to get me, because I assured her I would wear it. A simple shirt that says, "Obama is my Homey." I laugh every time. My voting preference is as follows. If Hillary beats Obama, I'm voting McCain without question. (One Clinton was more than enough for my taste; I hated deploying every time there was a controversy about that family.) However, if Obama wins the democratic ticket, then the debates between he and McCain, and whether he modifies his stance on Iraq, will be my deciding factors. I intend to write him [Obama] a letter while I am on leave to express this to him. Were he to stay the course on Iraq, and let us finish what we started, then I would have to vote for him. If he and McCain decided to partner up, (okay, that's rather silly, but if... ) no question. If Gore were to partner with Obama on the democratic ticket, I think I would have to seriously vote democrat this year.