You think you got it bad?

I went on a road trip this last weekend for the first time in a long time. Went down to Pismo Beach, almost exactly half way to Los Angeles. It's no secret that San Franciscans (and most Californians) pay dearly for gasoline. Gas here has been hovering around $3.50 for awhile, and I've seen premium pushing $4.00. (I did see a spike of $3.99 a gallon one day.)

As a corollary, I'm one of the least worried. I live 4 miles from work, and always either take public transit or my motorcycle, and when you've only got a 4.5 gallon tank, you don't really worry about the price. My "cage" that I do own is a Saturn that gets about 30-ish miles to the gallon when I do go on those road trips. And heating costs? The temperature here is so temperate, my gas bill hovers around $20 a month. Usually turning on the lights (or having a couple computers on) is all the heat I need. Even then, paying 13 cents a kilowatt hour ain't fun.

So, what do we do about it? For one thing, I actually don't think gas costs enough. Do I think it should be $5, or $6 a gallon? No. But here's my beef, and one completely lost in Washington: The cost of services government provides should be borne most closely by those who benefit them, whenever at all possible. (Within reason. For example, social programs such as those that benefit the poor, sick or elderly should be borne by those who aren't poor, sick or elderly.) So within that, I think 100% of transportation costs should be born by gas taxes. I have little patience for people who complain about gas prices and traffic. If you want better transportation options, you gotta pay for it. If it's borne by the general fund, it's welfare. You're essentially transferring the sales taxes from everything some little old lady buys who never drives anywhere so you can drive your SUV down 680, i.e., the people who don't drive are subsidizing the people who do. Gas taxes are the most direct way of having the people who use the freeways to pay for them. But as Republicans like to say, they're not really taxes, just more of a "fee". :-)

Secondly, by artificially subsidizing the true cost of transportation, there's no reason not to buy that gas-guzzler, keeping demand high and costs high. It's true when they say when there's one finger pointing at someone else, there's three pointing back to you. Adam Smith was quick to point out, there is no supply without a demand. "But I have to get to work!" Sure, we all do. But did you have to get the Chevy Tahoe? Did you have to take 8 separate trips to run your errands? Do you have to act extra aggressive in traffic? Do you have to drive alone to work? No. The truth of the matter is every gallon you save is a gallon that doesn't have to be dug out of the ground in some harder place to get to, in some more politically unstable country.

And then there's the issue of supply. India and China are the two fastest growing consumers of gasoline. But did you know that of that growth, India plans to get 50% of it's new energy from renewable sources? We're taking gigawatts of energy from renewable sources. I ask you, if India can do it, why can't the US? Do we just not have the will to compete? We might not be flush with oil, but we certainly are flush in natural renewable resources.

So what's my supply plan? The fact of the matter is that we have an enormous continuum of energy supplies. We do have coal and natural gas. Right now, 90% of coal goes to supply electricity. You can't run your car on coal, but you can convert coal into gas. The Germans did it in World War II, and the economics of it are quickly becoming more and more sense. It's comparable to the cost of what Alberta's doing with the tar sands, and their economy is booming as a result. (The jokes about the Canadian dollar aren't as funny as they used to be.) You can run a car on natural gas, but again, most of it now goes towards generating electricity and heat.

And nuclear? I'm actually a big supporter of nuclear energy. Coal actually releases many times the radioactive material into the environment than nuclear energy does per kilowatt hour generated. It's just spread out over a lot more material. And it takes about 2 pounds of coal to generate 1 kilowatt of energy. That's a helluva lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. But I understand other people have reservations.

Ultimately, I think our quickest option is blowing in the wind. Um, yeah, wind. Wind power is now as cheap or cheaper to generate as traditional forms of energy, including coal. The immediate political problem is that the areas most flush with wind sources are also far from population centers, such as North Dakota, Montana and Alaska. They also tend to be rich in other sources of energy. North Dakota and Montana have tons of coal, and Alaska has oil. Their electricity rates tend to be very cheap, which doesn't make wind as competitive, but it is competitive, and sometimes very competitive in certain areas.

But the fact of the matter is that every kilowatt hour generated by wind is an American kilowatt generated, not from some foreign source. That leaves more coal to be turned into gas, and more natural gas to run our cars instead. (Sounds like a pipe dream? Natural gas vehicles run on the streets of San Francisco all the time.) And the issues with wind are just hiccups compared to a lot of other problems.

So what I propose is a national plan on wind energy. Many states, including Minnesota and Iowa are using their own resources within their borders. A national plan to allow the easier transport of electricity across borders would go far so that states flush with wind power to export them to population centers (North and South Dakota could more easily ship to Minnesota). And even if they don't need the power, the coal and natural gas power plans they offset would mean more coal and natural gas for other states.

Ultimately, I think it would pave the way for the hydrogen economy. Large wind plants in the Midwest could cleanly manufacture hydrogen for transport by pipeline to population centers. But we need a plan to get there. A strong national plan would be a great first start. In states flush with natural renewable resources, require 100% of new electricity to come from those natural renewable resources, especially where price competitive. More easily allow the export of electricity from state to state. Make wind subsidies permanent or phased out gradually over a much longer period so that wind power plant manufacturers know that their business isn't going to suddenly cut off in a couple years and feel comfortable about building up their capacity. The energy independence of America depends on it.

The thing is, will we ever run out of gas? Actually, no. Surprising answer? Not really. The problem isn't that we're going to run out of gas. The problem is it will be more and more expensive to get to. Eventually the cost will surpass some other source of energy, be it natural gas, hydrogen, solar, wind, what have you, and then why pay $10 a gallon for gas when you can pay $6 for the equivalent hydrogen.

Sound scary? $4 a gallon for gas used to be a "what if" scenario too. I just saw it the other day. You can bury your head in a sand and say "nu uh", or you can read the writing on the gas station and get a good look at the future and realize what are we going to do about this new reality.

The good news is we're on a good start. The US is poised to overtake Germany as the #1 producer of wind power in the world. But subsidies to oil companies already flush with cash are not going to solve anything. We need leadership in Washington who will see this through, someone who has the vision and the leadership to carry it through.

Join me. Will you?

Oh decid, ¿Pueden ver?

For not knowing what that means, those few words are causing a lot of hubbub.

For my non-Spanish speaking friends, those are the opening lines of the Star Spangled Banner en español. The very act of me typing them have been attributed to the same vitriol as if I sketched out a picture of Muhammad.

Pero ¿pórque? I know even among many native Spanish-speaking friends of mine, they've been nervous about the idea of recording the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish. After all, and I agree, that the song itself should be sung in it's original form. Ask Roseanne Barr what happens if you don't.

But is it wrong to translate it? Spanish teachers have been sharing translations of it for years. After all, if English isn't your first language, wouldn't you want to know what it meant? A friend asked me what the words "Einigheit und Recht und Freiheit" meant on the edge of the German Euro. (Unity and justice and freedom.) They're also the first words of the German national anthem ("Das Deutscheslied"). After all, if you didn't understand German, aren't you a bit curious the meaning of a song that a nation has chosen to represent itself? After all, those words may sounds great, but it were more like "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles/über alles in der Welt" sung to the same tune, that might not make you curious unless you knew it meant "Germany, Germany over everything, over everything in the World", which is exactly the lyrics they picked during the Third Reich. Are you curious now? (Yeah, I like the first version better too!)

One thing lost in the debate is the fact that the very tune of the Star Spangled Banner was "imported" from an old British drinking song. One could argue they're not singing the national anthem, but just created new lyrics on top of an old British drinking song.

But from another culture, one thing I found absolutely fascinating about learning Spanish, is the fact that I'm learning a ton about a culture that I had no idea I existed right next door to me. The only barrier had been one of language.

And that barrier colors this debate. For one thing, it's not a translation, it's just the same hymn. Even the name has been changed. "Nuestro himno" simply means "Our Anthem". Assumably, "our" just means Spanish speakers, since those who don't understand Spanish wouldn't understand the words. However, I understand that for those who don't understand Spanish, the effects of hearing the same hymn would have the same effect of watching a Japanese game show... you have no idea what they're saying, just what they're doing. Without knowing what they're saying, you think it's just sacrilege.

But the thing is, they aren't singing the national anthem. For a simple reason: They don't feel the Star Spangled Banner applies to them. At least not yet. They want to be here. They want to work. They want to contribute and take part in the American dream. They want to learn English. I have several friends who can't speak Spanish but both their parents are native speakers.... they wouldn't allow it in the home because they wanted their kids to do well in school and partake in the American dream. But we won't let them. It's not the American Anthem, it's Their Anthem. At least for now. That's what it means.

For full disclosure, I'm only a second generation American. My grandmother was born in Norway, and all of my great grandparents were born in the Europe. They all left their family. And at the time, not a damned one of them spoke English. They all came here to contribute to America. They might have even put out a Swedish or Norwegan flag... along side their American flag of course. After all, that's who made them. Honor your mother and father. But now they were Americans. They're just looking at where they came from and where they were going at the same time.

Why were they any more fortunate? Not long after they came over, laws were enacted to put tight restrictions on immigration. None of them ever had to apply for a green card. And do you know for sure that every single one of your anscesters came here legally? Worst yet, the "get in line" argument ignores the fact that we came over and said "Man this party's great. Too bad you're not invited."

And that seems the most un-American thing of all.

I'm back

Sorry guys for the long delay. The last few months have been kind of crazy. I've been doing a whole lotta nothing. Nothing hugely new to report. Had my wisdom teeth out in January. Haven't really gone anywhere, done a whole lot, work's been the same (or just more of it!), but fun stuff is on the horizon. I'll keep you updated! I promise!