opment.

Let’s face it: If Standard Oil or Exxon could figure out a way to put a meter on the sun, we’d have solar energy in abundance tomorrow. Meanwhile, we really need to challenge this notion o

With the crisis in oil and natural gas prices, the continued violence in the Middle East, and the environmental concerns brought front and center by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, alternative fuels have managed to become a topic of conversation in the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, not all proposals make sense environmentally. The energy crisis has given the nuclear industry a major boost, despite problems with nuclear waste and vulnerability to terrorist threats, and Republicans in Congress are pushing even harder for drilling on the ecologically fragile Alaskan slopes. Meanwhile the oil companies, in an attempt to keep a stranglehold on the production of energy, are the ones getting billions of dollars in support for developing new technologies, including hydrogen fuel cell and ethanol development.

Let’s face it: If Standard Oil or Exxon could figure out a way to put a meter on the sun, we’d have solar energy in abundance tomorrow. Meanwhile, we really need to challenge this notion of

anaged to become a topic of conversation in the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, not all proposals make sense environmentally. The energy crisis has given the nuclear industry a major boost, despite problems with nuclear waste and vulnerability to terrorist threats, and Republicans in Congress are pushing even harder for drilling on the ecologically fragile Alaskan slopes. Meanwhile the oil companies, in an attempt to keep a stranglehold on the production of energy, are the ones getting billions of dollars in support for developing new technologies, including hydrogen fuel cell and ethanol development.

Let’s face it: If Standard Oil or Exxon could figure out a way to put a meter on the sun, we’d have solar energy in abundance tomorrow. Meanwhile, we really need to challenge this notion o

e problems with nuclear waste and vulnerability to terrorist threats, and Republicans in Congress are pushing even harder for drilling on the ecologically fragile Alaskan slopes. Meanwhile the oil companies, in an attempt to keep a stranglehold on the production of energy, are the ones getting billions of dollars in support for developing new technologies, including hydrogen fuel cell and ethanol development.

Let’s face it: If Standard Oil or Exxon could figure out a way to put a meter on the sun, we’d have solar energy in abundance tomorrow. Meanwhile, we really need to challenge this notion o

nies, in an attempt to keep a stranglehold on the production of energy, are the ones getting billions of dollars in support for developing new technologies, including hydrogen fuel cell and ethanol development.

Let’s face it: If Standard Oil or Exxon could figure out a way to put a meter on the sun, we’d have solar energy in abundance tomorrow. Meanwhile, we really need to challenge this notion o

opment.

Let’s face it: If Standard Oil or Exxon could figure out a way to put a meter on the sun, we’d have solar energy in abundance tomorrow. Meanwhile, we really need to challenge this notion of having multinational, multi-billion-dollar companies the ones responsible for doling out our energy needs. Bringing energy production back to our shores from the Middle East, Venezuela, and other political hotspots is only the beginning of a solution.

We need every region in this country, and every community in each region, to make energy production a priority. In the Midwest, that can mean a combination of wind, solar, and ethanol or biodiesel production. Farmers particularly vulnerable to a rise in fuel to run their farm equipment could have their own small ethanol or biodiesel plants on-site, growing the raw material and then producing the fuel they need to operate their tractors, combines, and other machines. The Southeast could adopt solar technology on a house-by-house basis; just retro