American Energy Conservation Group
Background and Plan
By Al Boek - Jul 24th, 2008 at 4:51 pm EDT
Also listed in: 9 groups
Senator Barack Obama and Staff:
I'M SENDING YOU THIS POST, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS ENERGY PLATFORM AND THE DIRECTION WE TAKE ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY, MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL OF THEM AND HAVE THE GREATEST POSITIVE EFFECT ON OUR PARTY AND OUR NATION AND THE PLANET. -Al Boek aka Green Earl
For generations, big oil, big utility concerns, big government and big business have controlled and directed our country's energy policies. Their controlled has placed a strangle-hold on our citizens and
our country as a whole. It is time for a change. We can no longer afford to listen to these "self-
proclaimed experts" while our freedoms and options become fewer. We must declare, not a war please.
We must declare a new approach, a national effort to protect our country, our way of life and our planet. The Urgency of Now, M.L. King and you speak of, comes to mind when facing issues of this scope.
Twenty-nine years ago, several associates and I formed a renewable energy company called AMERICAN ENERGY CONSERVATION GROUP. At the time the Calfornia PUC had mandated a program called ZIP, for Zero Interest Program. No interest loans, state energy tax credits and federal rebates all existed to
help homeowners to defer the initial investment into renewable technologies such as added attic insulation, hot water heater blankets, storm windows or replacement windows, caulking and weatherstripping of doors and windows and solar domestic hot water heating and space heating.
We installed thousands of California energy conservation systems and solar generation projects. I am proud to inform you and your staff, Mr. Obama, these systems are still functioning and saving my customers energy and money, trouble-free, for the last 29 years. In fact,
I recently estimate that I had saved each customer at least $10,000 dollars, to date, if they just took average action. Those that did more have saved more. Further more I would estimate these same customers saved over 100 barrels of oil each, depending upon which cost per barrel you figure it at.
I know of no other approach, no other more cost-effective method and no longer history of success one could point to than this plan as their investments have paid back 5 or 6 to one ROI, without figuring in the credits, rebates and home improvement values or comforts added.
Thirty-eight years ago, at the age of 21 I joined the Army and volunteered for duty in Vietnam, I wanted to know what my country was doing in a little country 8,000 miles away. What a disappointment when I discovered 58,900 had been killed, is murdered to harsh of a word to use,
for what?
29 years ago I recall telling my customers we would one day be trading American blood for oil.
17 years ago, I spoke in front of the students protesting Desert Storm at the University of Hawaii. I told them that war in the middle-east would become another Vietnam. Sadly for my country, I was
correct on both issues. Did I process some secret inside information on these issues?
Only common since observations based on past history and hands on experience.
The problem must be attacked in the proper manner. Then it becomes easy as 1, 2, 3.
1. First is conservation
2. Second is solar domestic water and space heating, spa heating, pool heating and air conditioning.
3. Only after 1 & 2 has been addressed by the parties, homeowner of business, only then, do you address the electric need through the use of solar photovoltaics. Climate issues regarding all three items can be addresses by quantity, proper sizing and number of collectors and hot water storage or batteries.
The experts will tell you different. They will tell you to add solar electric first. They will tell you we can use the same technology to build large, centrally located energy generation systems that they can control and run. They are partially right, these systems too can be constructed.
But no plan is more effective than what I propose. None will put more people back to work. No other plan will displace more energy used quicker, or have large, wider appeal and effect on local needs than this plan and no plan will help our global warming concerns faster. This plan can end the war and our dependency on that foreign oil, fix the economy and turn around the nation and make the entire world a safer, cleaner place to live and to leave for your children.
Respectfully Submitted,
Earl Allen Boek
530 549-4315
American Energy Conservation Group
Redding, CA. 96002
I say, they listened...What do you say? Comments Below Please
1 comment:
I think that the problem of energy generation is caused by the state.
People burned things as fuel for the majority of human history. Just burned them, and they were not aware that there were any "emissions" other than smoke.
Now we can evaluate the chemical composition of our fuels, and we estimate how dangerous they may be. Never how beneficial, just how supposedly dangerous.
Cutting emissions is a stupid solution that will never work. It's a simplistic solution. In popular films, when an asteroid is heading for earth, they send out some brave heroes to blow it up. In reality, engineers intend to subtly upset the trajectory of dangerous asteroids, using gravity to drag them off course. This is a more efficient, and less emotionally gratifying solution.
Likewise, the solution to "emissions" is to subtlety. Rather than trying to reduce emissions (this will never happen, human beings need fuel, and they will reproduce) we should "recycle" them, find ways to convert them into other compounds, or simply promote conditions that will allow the eco-system to process them.
Above all, I believe, that what is called for is greater diversity in the use of fuels. I believe that this can be achieved by ending the compulsory state.
A compulsory state, such as the United States, is a collective of individuals given a monopoly on social policy, as well as the use of violence as enforcement, as a result of the "inter-subjective consensus".
Because the state is granted a monopoly on policy, it can regulate, standardize, or more accurately reduce the diversity of policy decision making within society. It has also used it's monopoly to benefit certain fuel supply businesses, such as the fossil fuel industry. This gives oil an unfair advantage, a "barrier to entry" that keeps competing fuel types from becoming economically viable.
So, I would say, in the absence of a violent, coercive state, the public will pursue a greater diversity of fuel sources, leading to a more diverse, healthy eco-system and economy.
Peace,
Post a Comment