Is it Climate Change or Global Warming?

It’s weird to think that in the span of just a week we’ll go from the polar vortex induced big chill of -30ºF to a January thaw with temperatures in the mid 30’s—a span of sixty degrees! I wonder if the climate change deniers will back off their claims that global warming doesn’t exist because, you know, winter is so cold, when temps jump up to unseasonably warm. As if climate were the same as weather. But as any student of climate change, meteorology, or simple scientific principals will tell you, it’s not that simple.

I used to think the term climate change was softer, an easier sell than the term global warming. It didn’t sound so dire, and was perhaps more palatable in debates. It certainly became more politically correct for a few years. Anybody could talk about climate change, a neutral phrase that didn’t identify whether the change was good or bad. Maybe the climate change was causing the global warming. Things change, right?

But here’s the deal. Climate change is the effect of global warming, not the cause. And, it’s one of several effects that are directly related to increased CO2 (and other gases) in the upper atmosphere that have combined to create the greenhouse effect known as global warming. So increased CO2=greenhouse effect=global warming=climate change.

But wait, there’s more. In addition to changes in climate from global warming, we are also seeing ocean warming, ocean acidification, increased desertification over large land masses (Central Asia, Northern Africa, Australia, and the North American Southwest,) and changes in animal migrations, to name a few. These are all directly caused by the overheating of the atmosphere from the greenhouse effect, which is caused by increased levels of CO2 (and other gasses) from the burning of fossil fuels.

Is linking global warming  to burning fossil fuels too touchy politically? Let’s get real, and not let the climate change deniers off the hook so easily. They are, bar none, panderers to Big Oil. And, if we only focus on changes in climate, we will miss the BIG picture on other changes that are happening to our planet, much to our peril.  Our atmosphere, the earth, and the oceans are warming at an unprecedented rate, and at some tipping point, it will be too late to reverse the trend for many generations to come.

Reducing CO2 Emissions with Wind Energy

 (Photo)

The 100.5 MW Trimont Area Wind Farm in Martin and Jackson Counties, Minnesota is comprised of 87 GE Energy 1.5 MW wind turbines.

Abstract.

This paper discusses the development of wind energy in Minnesota and its potential to offset carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. A comparison of the carbon dioxide emissions from a coal-fired utility-scale power plant will be compared to the emissions from a wind energy power plant of similar capacity (measured in megawatts).

Nearly half of the power in the United States is generated by about 600 coal-fired power plants. A typical utility scale coal-fired power plant emits 9,000 Mt (metric tons) of CO2 (carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere every day. Until recently, emission costs were not considered in power plant applications, permits, or cost of operations. Pending EPA regulations would require coal-fired power plants take into account the cost of carbon dioxide emissions when calculating the full cost of a new generating plant and the electricity it produces.  Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), the currently accepted best-case scenario for calculating the cost of carbon dioxide emissions, would raise electricity costs for a new coal-fired plant by up to 65% according to estimates from the US Department of Energy (DOE). The cost of electricity nation-wide would be impacted severely if utilities had to include the cost of CO2 mitigation in their rate structure.

On the bright side, wind energy is a sustainable, viable, and reliable energy source for electrical generation. Technological advances in turbine manufacture and resource modeling during the last twenty years have made it economically competitive as well. Electricity generated by wind energy has an added benefit that deserves further discussion: unlike burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, wind energy does not create greenhouse gas emissions, specifically CO2 (but also sulfur dioxide, methane, and other harmful pollutants).

With current U.S. policy poised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050, public and private utilities are looking at wind energy as a clean, affordable energy source with little negative environmental impact, and are reconsidering many coal fired plants currently on the drawing board. NV Energy in Nevada has postponed its plans for installing a coal-fired plant in Nevada; instead, its plans now call for increased use of renewable resources. Sunflower Electric’s earlier plans for two coal-fired plants have been cut in half; they also plan on developing wind energy to offset greenhouse emissions. The Big Stone II coal-fired power plant slated for construction just across the Minnesota border in South Dakota has been put on hold. Otter Tail Power Co, the lead developer, has pulled out of the project, as has Maple Grove based Great River Energy and Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. All stated uncertainty about pending federal carbon legislation as part of their decision.

A typical new coal fired power plant such as the one planed for Big Stone II has an installed price of $1.6 billion for a 630 MW (megawatt) rated capacity and a projected 9,000Mt of CO2 emissions per day. At that rate, unit analysis reveals that a single 630 MW coal-fired power plant would produce over 3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year.

9,000Mt CO2/day    X     365 days/year   =   3,285,000Mt CO2/year

Since the generation of electricity by wind power produces no carbon dioxide emissions, the entire carbon dioxide load from one coal-fired plant could be offset with wind energy under the following scenario:

Currently available commercial-grade wind turbines have a power rating of 2 MW at hub height of 100 meters.  Power production begins at about 12 mph and the maximum power output is reached at about 28 to 30 mph, after which yaw control and blade pitch controls kick in to regulate power output and rotor speed. This is done to maintain optimum rpm’s and to prevent overloading the structural components.

These turbines have rotor diameters of 100 meters. Cost of materials and the “square-cube law” have determined this to be the optimal size. The “square-cube law” says, basically, that as wind turbine rotor diameter increases, the energy output increases as the diameter squared (of the rotor-swept area). However, the volume, weight, and therefore mass and cost, increases as the cube of the diameter. So there is an optimal rotor size, although research on larger turbine diameters with lighter-weight materials is on-going.

Further, the amount of energy in the wind available for extraction by mechanical means increases with the cube of the wind speed, so resource assessment is critical. If the available energy at 15 mph is X, the available energy at 30 mph is X³. Additionally, the over-all capacity factor of a utility-scale wind turbine is just over 35% (latest data available is for 2005). The capacity factor measures how much of the rated power of a wind turbine will actually be generated consistently. So, a wind turbine with a 2 MW rated capacity and a capacity factor of 35% will produce 0 .7 MW consistently in the right resource environment.

2 MW Rated Power  X  35% capacity factor  =  .7 MW Delivered

By comparison, the Big Stone II coal-fired power plant has a rated capacity of 630 MW and a capacity factor of 75%.

630 MW Rated Power  X  75%  =    472 MW Delivered

In order to replace the electricity generated by the proposed Big Stone II coal-fired power plant with wind energy, we calculate the number of utility-scale wind turbines (rated power: 2 MW, capacity factor: 35%) necessary to produce the same MW of delivered power as the Big Stone II plant (rated power: 630 MW, capacity factor: 75%).

472 MW/.7MW   =   675  2 MW wind turbines.

At an installed cost of about $3million per turbine, the wind energy plant comes in at just over $2 billion compared to the coal-fired plant at $1.6 billion for the same available electrical generation. The thing is, the fuel f or wind energy is free whereas coal is not, so while installed cost might be slightly higher, there is year-over-year savings on fuel costs.

Wind energy development is growing in Minnesota. Currently rated at only 3% of net generation, compared to coal at 60%, state utilities are scrambling to meet mandated levels of 25% renewable resource power generation by 2025.  Xcel Energy, Minnesota’s largest utility, is under mandate to increase its use of renewable resources to 30% of its total energy output by 2020, and we have the wind to do it.

Minnesota is blessed with an abundant wind energy resource. The southwest corner of the state has consistent average annual wind speeds in the 8.5-9 m/sec range. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has recently published annual average wind speed maps and wind energy potential tables for each of the 48 contiguous states. According to their data, Minnesota has a wind energy potential in excess of 483,000 MW of installed capacity.

The wind turbines necessary to replace the power production of a Big Stone II sized coal-fired power plant would utilize about .01% of the state’s potential capacity. As stated above:

675 wind turbines    =   472 MW installed capacity.

472 MW installed capacity/483,000 MW total Minnesota capacity  =  .01% of potential.

Clearly , there is room to meet Minnesota’s future energy needs, reduce dependence on coal-fired power plants, save over 3 millions of tons of CO2 emissions each year, and improve the health of our citizens and environment through the implementation of utility-scale wind energy plants.

This paper focuses on the comparative installed cost of a utility-scale wind power plant vs. a conventional coal-fired power plant, their comparable CO2 emissions, and the ability to utilize the wind energy potential in Minnesota. Further analysis might evaluate the cost of carbon sequestration saved by producing electricity with wind power; or compare the relative costs of plant repair and maintenance for wind energy plants vs. coal-fired plants; or compare the relative total cost to society (an economic term that encompasses all negative externalities, such as pollution, impacts on health, and environmental degradation when analyzing economic endeavors). These topics, although they intrigue the author, are beyond the scope of this paper.

References

The Economist May 9, 2009. Coal-fired Power Plants: The Writing on the Wall. (v391 n8630, p35)

EPA 2004. Unit Conversions, Emissions Factors, and Other Reference Data.

Knoll, Aaron and Klink, Katherine 2009. Residential- and Commercial-scale Distributed Wind Energy in North Dakota. Renewable Energy: An International Journal; Nov2009, v34 issue 11 p2493-2500.

National Renewable Energy laboratory 2010. Estimates of Windy Land Area and Wind Energy Potential by State.

Thresher, Robert; Robinson, Michael and Veers, Paul 2008. The Status and Future of Wind Energy Technology. American Institute of Physics 978-0-7354-0572-1/08

Reducing CO2 Emissions

with Wind Energy

The 100.5 MW Trimont Area Wind Farm in Martin and Jackson Counties,

Minnesota is comprised of 87 GE Energy 1.5 MW wind turbines.

Abstract.

This paper discusses the development of wind energy in Minnesota and its potential to offset carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. A comparison of the carbon dioxide emissions from a coal-fired utility-scale power plant will be compared to the emissions from a wind energy power plant of similar capacity (measured in megawatts).

Nearly half of the power in the United States is generated by about 600 coal-fired power plants. A typical utility scale coal-fired power plant emits 9,000 Mt (metric tons) of CO2 (carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere every day. Until recently, emission costs were not considered in power plant applications, permits, or cost of operations. Pending EPA regulations would require coal-fired power plants take into account the cost of carbon dioxide emissions when calculating the full cost of a new generating plant and the electricity it produces.  Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), the currently accepted best-case scenario for calculating the cost of carbon dioxide emissions, would raise electricity costs for a new coal-fired plant by up to 65% according to estimates from the US Department of Energy (DOE). The cost of electricity nation-wide would be impacted severely if utilities had to include the cost of CO2 mitigation in their rate structure.

On the bright side, wind energy is a sustainable, viable, and reliable energy source for electrical generation. Technological advances in turbine manufacture and resource modeling during the last twenty years have made it economically competitive as well. Electricity generated by wind energy has an added benefit that deserves further discussion: unlike burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, wind energy does not create greenhouse gas emissions, specifically CO2 (but also sulfur dioxide, methane, and other harmful pollutants).

With current U.S. policy poised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050, public and private utilities are looking at wind energy as a clean, affordable energy source with little negative environmental impact, and are reconsidering many coal fired plants currently on the drawing board. NV Energy in Nevada has postponed its plans for installing a coal-fired plant in Nevada; instead, its plans now call for increased use of renewable resources. Sunflower Electric’s earlier plans for two coal-fired plants have been cut in half; they also plan on developing wind energy to offset greenhouse emissions. The Big Stone II coal-fired power plant slated for construction just across the Minnesota border in South Dakota has been put on hold. Otter Tail Power Co, the lead developer, has pulled out of the project, as has Maple Grove based Great River Energy and Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. All stated uncertainty about pending federal carbon legislation as part of their decision.

A typical new coal fired power plant such as the one planed for Big Stone II has an installed price of $1.6 billion for a 630 MW (megawatt) rated capacity and a projected 9,000Mt of CO2 emissions per day. At that rate, unit analysis reveals that a single 630 MW coal-fired power plant would produce over 3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year.

9,000Mt CO2    X     365 days   =   3,285,000Mt CO2

Day                              year                           year

Since the generation of electricity by wind power produces no carbon dioxide emissions, the entire carbon dioxide load from one coal-fired plant could be offset with wind energy under the following scenario:

Currently available commercial-grade wind turbines have a power rating of 2 MW at hub height of 100 meters.  Power production begins at about 12 mph and the maximum power output is reached at about 28 to 30 mph, after which yaw control and blade pitch controls kick in to regulate power output and rotor speed. This is done to maintain optimum rpm’s and to prevent overloading the structural components.

These turbines have rotor diameters of 100 meters. Cost of materials and the “square-cube law” have determined this to be the optimal size. The “square-cube law” says, basically, that as wind turbine rotor diameter increases, the energy output increases as the diameter squared (of the rotor-swept area). However, the volume, weight, and therefore mass and cost, increases as the cube of the diameter. So there is an optimal rotor size, although research on larger turbine diameters with lighter-weight materials is on-going.

Further, the amount of energy in the wind available for extraction by mechanical means increases with the cube of the wind speed, so resource assessment is critical. If the available energy at 15 mph is X, the available energy at 30 mph is X³. Additionally, the over-all capacity factor of a utility-scale wind turbine is just over 35% (latest data available is for 2005). The capacity factor measures how much of the rated power of a wind turbine will actually be generated consistently. So, a wind turbine with a 2 MW rated capacity and a capacity factor of 35% will produce 0 .7 MW consistently in the right resource environment.

2 MW Rated Power  X  35% capacity factor  =  .7 MW Delivered

By comparison, the Big Stone II coal-fired power plant has a rated capacity of 630 MW and a capacity factor of 75%.

630 MW Rated Power  X  75%  =    472 MW Delivered

In order to replace the electricity generated by the proposed Big Stone II coal-fired power plant with wind energy, we calculate the number of utility-scale wind turbines (rated power: 2 MW, capacity factor: 35%) necessary to produce the same MW of delivered power as the Big Stone II plant (rated power: 630 MW, capacity factor: 75%).

472 MW/.7MW   =   675  2 MW wind turbines.

 

At an installed cost of about $3million per turbine, the wind energy plant comes in at just over $2 billion compared to the coal-fired plant at $1.6 billion for the same available electrical generation. The thing is, the fuel f or wind energy is free whereas coal is not, so while installed cost might be slightly higher, there is year-over-year savings on fuel costs.

Wind energy development is growing in Minnesota. Currently rated at only 3% of net generation, compared to coal at 60%, state utilities are scrambling to meet mandated levels of 25% renewable resource power generation by 2025.  Xcel Energy, Minnesota’s largest utility, is under mandate to increase its use of renewable resources to 30% of its total energy output by 2020, and we have the wind to do it.

Minnesota is blessed with an abundant wind energy resource. The southwest corner of the state has consistent average annual wind speeds in the 8.5-9 m/sec range. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has recently published annual average wind speed maps and wind energy potential tables for each of the 48 contiguous states. According to their data, Minnesota has a wind energy potential in excess of 483,000 MW of installed capacity.

The wind turbines necessary to replace the power production of a Big Stone II sized coal-fired power plant would utilize about .01% of the state’s potential capacity. As stated above:

675 wind turbines    =   472 MW installed capacity.

472 MW installed capacity/483,000 MW total Minnesota capacity  =  .01% of potential.

Clearly , there is room to meet Minnesota’s future energy needs, reduce dependence on coal-fired power plants, save over 3 millions of tons of CO2 emissions each year, and improve the health of our citizens and environment through the implementation of utility-scale wind energy plants.

This paper focuses on the comparative installed cost of a utility-scale wind power plant vs. a conventional coal-fired power plant, their comparable CO2 emissions, and the ability to utilize the wind energy potential in Minnesota. Further analysis might evaluate the cost of carbon sequestration saved by producing electricity with wind power; or compare the relative costs of plant repair and maintenance for wind energy plants vs. coal-fired plants; or compare the relative total cost to society (an economic term that encompasses all negative externalities, such as pollution, impacts on health, and environmental degradation when analyzing economic endeavors). These topics, although they intrigue the author, are beyond the scope of this paper.

References

The Economist May 9, 2009. Coal-fired Power Plants: The Writing on the Wall. (v391 n8630, p35)

EPA 2004. Unit Conversions, Emissions Factors, and Other Reference Data.

Knoll, Aaron and Klink, Katherine 2009. Residential- and Commercial-scale Distributed Wind Energy in North Dakota. Renewable Energy: An International Journal; Nov2009, v34 issue 11 p2493-2500.

National Renewable Energy laboratory 2010. Estimates of Windy Land Area and Wind Energy Potential by State.

Thresher, Robert; Robinson, Michael and Veers, Paul 2008. The Status and Future of Wind Energy Technology. American Institute of Physics 978-0-7354-0572-1/08

Wealth Distribution in the US

How Is the Distribution of Wealth in the United States Changing?

I look at the surprising facts surrounding the recent debate over the haves and the have-nots.  I researched the changes in wealth, how it is earned, who gets it, who gets to keep it, and who gets left out. This is what I found. Remy

In order to discuss how the distribution of wealth has changed in the United States, both the statistics of “how” as in “how much” and the mechanics of “how” as in “how did this happen” need to be addressed to see how America has become less equal than most citizens think. Additionally, what is included in the term “wealth” must be examined, for this also has an impact on the changes in wealth distribution in the United States.

When talking about wealth distribution, it is important to distinguish between wage distribution and wealth distribution. Wages are what is paid for work done, a product produced, whether that product is a tangible product, service, or idea. Wealth is accumulated wages beyond what is spent, when “income exceeds consumption” (Lorenzi, 2009, para. 5). This is an important distinction because without excess income, there can be no wealth accumulation. Most Americans think wealth distribution in the United States is far more equal than it is (Bennett, 2010). In a survey by Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael L. Norton of Harvard Business School, the average respondent thought the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans owned 59 percent of national wealth, when in fact they own 84 percent (Bennett, 2010). Both economic benchmarks, wages and wealth, have seen dramatic shifts in distribution.

Wage inequality has changed dramatically in the last forty years. At the end of  World War II, and for three decades after, wages grew proportionally with productivity, and the American middle class was born (Alperovitz, 2009; Noblet, 2006). But since the late 1970s, wages have lost ground for the average worker while executive compensation has soared (Noblet, 2006). In 1979, the top one percent of Americans earned 33.1 times what the bottom 20 percent earned, but by 2000, this multiplier had more than doubled to 88.5 (Hogan, 2005). Wealth distribution is even more skewed, with the top 20 percent of Americans owning 84 percent of all national wealth, while the bottom 20 percent own a mere 0.1 percent (Bennett, 2010). The United States has not seen this level of wealth inequality since the Roaring Twenties (Noblet, 2006; Tyson, 2004).

The Dutch economist Jan Pen invented a stunning graphic to demonstrate income inequality. Writing about Britain in the early 1970s, Pen imagined a parade of workers that took an hour to pass and was ranked from the lowest to the highest earners, to create a graphic example of income distribution (Crook, 2006). Each worker was as high as their relative earnings, with those of average earnings being of average height (Crook, 2006). The first marchers in the parade are literally underground, as are their earnings, followed by people only a few inches high but growing slowly until nearly three-fourths of the way through the hour-long parade, when the marchers finally reach average height (Crook, 2006). Toward the end of the parade, marchers are 500+ feet high, and in the last few seconds, the shoes of British marchers with the highest incomes towered above everyone (Crook, 2006). At the time, America’s income distribution was more skewed that Britain’s and in the thirty-five years since Jan Pen’s parade, American income distribution has gotten even worse, with the incomes of those marching in the last thirty-six seconds rising by 121 percent.

How has the change in wealth distribution happened? In the decades after World War II, the wealthiest Americans were heavily taxed, with marginal rates over 90 percent on income above $400,000 (Bennett, 2010). Massive government investments in infrastructure, education, technology, and knowledge-based enterprises spread those tax dollars around, redistributing the nation’s wealth and creating “social value” (Alperovitz, 2009, p. 88) that was available to all citizens. With the tax cuts for the wealthy implemented under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, little excess government revenue was available to continue those social investments, and in fact much of America’s infrastructure has suffered from neglect since the 1970s (Alperovitz, 2009). Additionally, while gains from increased productivity matched increased wages for the first three decades after World War II, post-tax cut economic gains from productivity have been skewed in favor of the wealthiest earners. Alperovitz states:

…virtually all of the economic gains in this period were captured by a small minority of households at the top. As of 2004, the top 5 percent of households controlled more than 50 percent of the entire net worth of the country, while the bottom half controlled less than 3 percent. The share of national income going to the richest one percent has more than doubled over the last three decades (2009).

Further, the “Solow residual” (Alperovitz, 2009, p. 90), or increased productivity due to accumulated technical knowledge, went primarily to increased earnings for the highest corporate executives and was not distributed evenly among all workers (Alperovitz, 2009). Put simply, this meant that the wealthiest earners benefitted more from accumulated social value than their individual productive contributions alone would account for (Alperovitz, 2009).

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts created increases in income and wealth for a small fraction of Americans, coupled with increased executive wages, or unearned surplus, that were in excess of their individual economic contribution (Alperovitz, 2009; Lorenzi, 2009). The shift in income distribution and lower tax rates reduced public investment in maintaining post-World War II social wealth, to the detriment of the nation’s schools, infrastructure, and knowledge base (Alperovitz, 2009; Crook, 2009).

The salary gap, or income gap, has further unfortunate consequences. The salary gap usually precedes a benefits gap, with high income earners receivig more non-taxed benefits such as expensive (and inclusive) health care coverage, club memberships, free day care, and so on (Noblet, 2006). The benefits gap usually results in a health care gap, with a higher proportion of low wage earners’ income having to go towards health care expenses (Berliner 2002). With proportionately more of their incomes going to health care costs and other essential expenses, many Americans now find themselves in a credit gap, a debt gap, an equity gap, and increasingly, an income mobility gap (Alperovitz, 2009; Bennett, 2010; Berliner 2002; Noblet, 2006). There is no excess income with which to build wealth.

Few Americans are aware of the depth of income and wealth disparity in the United States; on average, they imagine a wealth distribution more similar to Sweden’s than their own (Bennett, 2010). This ignorance is further exacerbated by the popular cry of “no new taxes” and a trend towards more libertarian politics (Bennett, 2010). At the same time, decades of neglect of the social goods paid for by the World War II generation has become more evident in the nation’s educational system, roads and infrastructure, and investment in research and development, further eroding individual wealth of all but the highest paid, wealthiest Americans (Alperovitz, 2009; Hogan, 2005).

Groups such as “The Other 98%” have got it exactly right. Wealth distribution in the most affluent country in the world has, since the 1970s, disproportionately benefitted the wealthiest among us, reduced economic mobility for the rest, and condemned millions to a hopeless position at the bottom of the pile.

References

Alperovitz, G., & Daley, L. (2009). Who Is Really ‘Deserving’?. Dissent (00123846), 56(4), 88-91. <http://ezproxy.metrostate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=44211942&site=ehost-live>

Bennett, D. (2010). The Inequality Delusion. Bloomberg Businessweek, (4201), 8-11. <http://ezproxy.metrostate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=54591591&site=ehost-live>

Berliner, H. S. (2002). Public Health and Social Justice. Society, 39(4), 25-27.  <http://ezproxy.metrostate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18673569&site=ehost-live>

Crook, C. (2006). The Height of Inequality. Atlantic Monthly (10727825), 298(2), 36-37. <http://ezproxy.metrostate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21796159&site=ehost-live>

Hogan, J. (2005). There’s one rule for the rich.. New Scientist, 185(2490), 6-7. . <http://ezproxy.metrostate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16616822&site=ehost-live>

Lorenzi, P., & Hilton, F. (2009). Spreading the Wealth. Society, 46(4), 304-307. doi:10.1007/s12115-009-9222-9.  <http://ezproxy.metrostate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=40926272&site=ehost-live>

Noblet, K. (2006). Probing the Shifting Ground of Wage and Benefit Gaps. Nieman Reports, 60(1), 16-18. <http://ezproxy.metrostate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20410986&site=ehost-live>

Tyson, L. (2004). How Bush Widened The Wealth Gap. BusinessWeek, (3906), 32.  <http://ezproxy.metrostate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14796855&site=ehost-live>

The First Post

It is here that I will present my ideas, opinions and musings on subjects important to me: the environment, global warming, getting off the hydrocarbon treadmill, the economy, and occasionally, short fiction pieces.