Prepared to adapt to climate change?

The United States recently conducted its first nation-wide survey on the public’s preparedness for, and perception of, climate change. Turns out a majority of people don’t care to spend their tax dollars to rebuild and protect the shoreline homes of others. “Big surprise,” says no one.

The survey was conducted by Stanford University and found that only a third of people supported residential relocation away from hazardous beach areas or erecting walls to protect against flooding. The cost of such redevelopment is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. (After the devastation of Hurricane Sandy, the state of New Jersey received a $10 billion bailout!)

According to Stanford political science professor and director of the survey, Jon Korsnick, his is the first nation-wide poll aimed at gauging public opinion on society’s readiness to adapt to global warming.

The survey was comprised of 1,174 people, and was conducted online by GFK Custom Research. 62% of people favored heightening building codes to make new developments stormproof. However, 60% believed those individuals living on the coast should be responsible for fitting the bill, as opposed to levying a nation-wide income tax. In terms of specific solutions, about 80% said disaster relief should come from local property taxes. 47% believed the government should ban people from rebuilding their damaged homes and should be forced to relocate.
 
“(This) reflects the public’s fatalistic sense that it’s more realistic to just give up the beach than to try to save it when other storms in the future will just wash it away again,” said Korsnick. Why build a wall when the warmer the planet gets, the higher the waves will crash?

There are three main ways to protect coastlines against today’s climate-induced super storms. You can ‘hold the line’ with physical barriers, replenish the beach and add sand dunes, or simply move away from the beach altogether. As previously mentioned, most people seem to prefer the latter option.

Trillions of tourist dollars are at stake. People’s coastal lives are at stake. Should the government be able to tell a person where to live? Or do we, as citizens of a collective, have a social obligation to do what’s best for everyone, and chose where we live responsibly?

Whether people will have to give up their beautiful beach-fronts or not remains to be seen. In the meantime, while we debate how to protect ourselves against the damage we’ve already done, an equally important debate should be waged on our plans for the future of energy.

NRGLab wants to be a large part of the discussion. Better yet, they want to be a part of the solution. By developing a system of low-cost, carbon-free electricity production, NRGLab hopes to free us from our dependency on dirty oil. Eliminating carbon emissions will diminish the threat of super storms. Taxpayers won’t be stuck with the bill, either. Learn how affordable it can be to own an SH-box at nrglab.asia.

To view the study conducted by Stanford, visit: http://stanford.io/16kTvK.

Can't afford another spill

As we approach the 24^th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, we must ask ourselves: have we done enough to protect our oceans and beaches from this filthy substance?

According to Art Sterritt, Executive Director of the Coastal First Nations, we haven’t. He summarized the CFN’s position on oil tanker traffic along the coast and the potentially disastrous effect a spill would have on the region’s ecosystem and communities: “If you transpose the geographic area affected by the Valdez spill onto the area tankers would travel down the west coast, a spill could theoretically stretch from Prince Rupert (Canada) to Vancouver (Roughly 1,500 kilometers).”

The Exxon Valdez spill occurred on March 24, 1989. Up to 750,000 barrels of crude oil poured into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Alaska, the remote location of which made response efforts that much more difficult. Roughly 11 million gallons of oil went on to cover 2,100 km of coastline, and 28,000 square km of ocean.

This had been the largest ecological disaster in American waters, until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident. Following an explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, an opening in the sea-floor gushed oil unabated for three whole months! That pumped an estimated 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the gulf, poisoning hundreds of thousands of marine and coastal wildlife.

But what if these risky long-distance tanker runs and off-shore oil rigs were no longer necessary? We could save millions of dollars in disaster relief. We could save millions of lives. If only energy production was made accessible to the public, freeing them from the big oil companies who’d have no choice but to cut-back on operational costs, including transportation.

That’s part of the reason why NRGLab created the SH-box. Semi-conductive, thermo-generating technology is contained within a small case producing electricity for $0.03 per kW, which is four times less expensive than current rates. Better yet, the battery has a shelf-life of 20 years! That means the SH-box is there and ready whenever you need it.

The box itself is comprised of relatively inexpensive materials, like rare-earth elements and metal oxides, making the box affordable to a wide demographic. By introducing it to market, NRGLab hopes the SH-box will lay a devastating blow to big oil. How many spills is it going to take? How many millions of gallons of water and miles of coastline must mankind destroy before we say, “Enough is enough,” and do away with these bulky, ticking-time bombs they call oil tankers and rigs?

Out with the old, and cumbersome. In with the new, and all-natural. In with the SH-box.  

Our fading trust in banks

It took centuries for banks to earn the public’s trust. It took just a few hours to destroy it. After the recent “confiscatory reform” in Cyprus, trust in the banking system is expected to be lost for the foreseeable future. A bank can have a beautiful office and highly-qualified personnel, sure. Its activity, however, can be no different from street vendors in Manhattan. And who would trust those hucksters with valuables for safekeeping? No one, that's who.

Financial experts have convinced us that banks are the safest and most stable means of monetary protection. During World War II, banks positioned themselves as “knights without fear" that were "above reproach." Today, it’s obvious that banks were unknowingly used to plug holes in a sinking, pot-marked economy. The issuance of the Cyprus directive by the European Union was a public demonstration that the trouble is far from over. On the contrary – the crisis is worsening. And now, the reputation of the entire banking system is at stake.

Following the confiscatory reform in Cyprus, one thing is clear: bank deposits are no longer safe, long-term assets. That means we need to find an alternative source of investment. How about low-cost energy? Data supports the theory that in order to sustain wealth, one must have some sort of share in power production. After all - the demand for energy isn't expected to dwindle any time soon.

The on-going financial crisis threatens Western bankers who have grown their “armies” significantly over the past thirty years. Huge profits were made on new financial technology. Due to this market success, the number of bankers rose drastically. Their level of professionalism, however, did not. (If anything, it decreased!) The “sword of the crisis”  will most likely slay a number of players in the banking industry, slashing the overall number of bankers. (5-10 for every 1,000 currently employed) These individuals can be old or young. Seasoned or inexperienced. When dealing with money, all types can be confiscated.


In the meantime, bankers refuse to offer any constructive solutions, save distancing themselves from everyone and ignoring council in order to plead ignorance. There’s a growing fear amidst the banking industry, and their only hope lies in keeping the capital secure. Not only is there mistrust in the current system, there’s also a prevailing, desperate desire to maintain the status quo. People are afraid of change. (Especially those who risk losing money, power, their reputation, or a combination of all three) Yet everyone pretends that NOTHING has changed. That the economy is fine. That the sky is green! But we're all being deceived. Meanwhile, the crisis continues to escalate and the threat of global economic collapse seems more and more real with each passing day. Will bankers be able to adapt and react to fluctuations in the market? It seems unlikely, since they view outside ideas as foreign and useless.

The portrait of the future is bleak. Irrational public optimism in the banking system only turns a blind eye, allowing the situation to worsen. The direr the straights, the more resistant banks become to admitting responsibility. The less open they are to change. One should expect the optimism from all the economic TV advisers to continue – up until the day the banks lose all of our money. Needless to say, when that day comes, the consequences will be tragic.

As American founding father and President Thomas Jefferson once said: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It’s time to take the power back from the banks. Back from the bankers. It’s time for an alternative source of monetary investment. An alternative source of energy. Before it's too late...        

As if coal couldn't get any dirtier

Recently, Patriot Coal Corporation filed paperwork with the courts terminating roughly $1.6 billion in health benefits for thousands of American coal miners. The move came as a last ditch effort to avoid Chapter 11 bankruptcy, proving again that big business considers stock holders interest's over those of their own blue collar workers.

According to Patriot Corp, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) operate at substantially higher labor costs, prohibiting the company from staying competitive in the cut-throat energy industry. Patriot is demanding "more flexible work rules and a significantly lower labor cost structure." Aka work longer for less. Anyone jumping at that opportunity?

"The actions we have taken today are necessary for the survival of Patriot and the preservation of more than 4,000 jobs," said Chief Executive Bennett Hatfield, in defense of the retiree benefit cuts.

Patriot did propose an alternative. Instead of cutting befits, the company offered the union a profit-sharing trust known as the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA). Yet, union leaders are aware that Patriot may want to file for bankruptcy. Legal loopholes will allow them, and other energy companies like Patriot, to save billions by eliminating employee pensions. Men and women who have dedicated their lives to the mines are being cast aside in favor of protecting the price of a share.

Will the CEO be forfeiting his private jet? Will the President of Patriot forgo his annual bonus for the good of the company?

Heck, no!

Like a cancerous tumor, our current energy industry is corrupt, feeding off of free enterprise, and needs to be cut out if society hopes to survive. But it's difficult in a world where big business dominates the market. Where families have little choice over what energy provider supplies their town. Where gas has topped $4.00 a gallon. Where coal miners' futures are determined by CEOs. We need to eliminate these destructive habits once and for all. How?

The SH-box allows countries, corporations, and communities to invest in a clean, low-cost energy alternative. NRGLab is working towards establishing a new energy infrastructure. A cleaner, freer world. Because no one should be enslaved to the establishment. Break free by learning more about NRGLab at http://nrglab.asia/

Environmental group files lawsuit: fights coal

Yesterday, the Sierra Club, which champions clean air and water practices throughout the United States, filed a lawsuit against DTE Energy, one of Detroit's largest energy providers. The lawsuit claimed violations at four of DTE's coal-burning facilities. The other three remain shrouded in smog and mystery.

The Sierra Club made it's intentions clear way back in November at a press conference along the River Rouge, where one could see the thick columns of smoke being pumped into the atmosphere. Sierra's ultimate goal is to get DTE to switch from coal to a cleaner source of energy. Yet, as even simplest of TV political drama viewers can tell you, policy often gets lost in the entanglements of big business. Are we really expecting people with millions invested in coal mines, refineries, and drilling operations to willing relinquish the choke hold they have on our energy infrastructure?

You would like to think that the innate good in people will ultimately the better of them -- but when millions of dollars are at stake, 'good' goes out the window, and people become unpredictable.

The lawsuit filed against DTE calls for them to make radical changes in order to meet the standards set by the Clean Air Act of 1963. The Sierra Group found over 1,400 violations at four of DTE's coal-burning power plants: River Rouge, St. Clair, Belle River, and Trenton Channel.

According to Patrick Geans, a representative for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, the lawsuit “calls on DTE to live up to its often stated claim of being a good neighbor."

Not so fast, says DTE.

“The Sierra Club's announcement is clearly a ploy to grab some headlines and part of their crusade to end the use of coal," wrote DTE spokesperson Len Singer in an email last fall. "All of our plants, including those cited in the news release, operate in compliance with state and federal emissions regulations, which are designed to protect the environment and public health.

Although DTE has spent billions over the past decade taking measures to curb carbon emissions, COAL IS STILL A CARBON EMITTING ENERGY SOURCE. It's dirty by nature. Unclean, and out-dated. No matter if you slap the word 'clean' in front of 'coal', coal is still coal. You know -- the black clumpy stuff Santa Clause brings all the bad children? Ever wonder why he doesn't bring it to the good children? Or better yet, coal's wealthy investors? Because it's dirty!

It's important to ensure that corporations are meeting current environmental standards. But it should be imperative that we work towards a permanent solution to the current energy crisis. No matter what you may think of the available alternatives, no matter how many jobs coal and oil may create, the fact remains -- one day, the wells and mines will run dry. Where will we be then? (Assuming poisonous air and water hasn't wiped us out by then.)

Hopefully, the Sierra Club's lawsuit will send a shock-wave through the energy industry. People are tired of being force-fed the same-old routine and sound bites. They want real answers. Real solutions. Clean-energy.

Saving time or wasting energy? Studies on DST

Whether you're aware of it or not, Daylight Savings Time (DST) began yesterday, springing clocks forward and forcing millions of commuters to lose an hour of sleep. But does the time change actually save energy? A new study out of Indiana, U.S.A, offers evidence to the contrary.

As of 2006, 77 of the state of Indiana's 92 counties were legally allowed to stay on standard time throughout the year, instead of adhering to DST. Farmers, as most employed people, were reluctant to work an extra hour in the morning. Caffeine and cattle -- not a fun way to wake up.

However, it quickly became difficult for people to travel in state, between counties, let alone out of state, to do business. "Does 9-5 mean their time, or mine? 'Out to lunch?' It's lunch time already!?" So, seven years ago, the state government passed legislation to coincide with DST. This gave professor Matthew Kotchen from the University of California-Santa Barbara, and one of his Ph.D. students, Laura Grant, an idea --

Taking millions of readings every month from the Duke Energy Corporation, one of Indiana's largest energy providers, Kotchen and Grant were able to compare consumption data from the counties forced to switch to DST. Their study was conducted over a period of three years, and the pair sampled nearly every household in the southern-half of Indiana.

What did they find?

Keeping the state on DST was costing Indiana tax-payers an additional $8.6 million every year! Kotchen theorized that higher air-conditioning costs on hot afternoons off-set reduced lighting during the day. "I've never had a paper with such a clear and unambiguous finding as this," said Mr. Kotchen, who presented his findings to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

This isn't exactly what Ben Franklin had in mind when, on a trip to France in 1784, he suggested enforcing a tax on window shutters and firing canons at sunrise to force people to wake up earlier than they were accustomed. In what would become a precursor to DST, Franklin noted that "the city of Paris might save every year, by the economy of using sunshine instead of candles."

During World Wars I and II, the U.S. government relied on DST as an energy-saving measure, as citizens banded together to save money to donate towards the effort overseas. DST became part of Americana. A symbol of sacrifice. It was extended in 1974, and then again in 1975 in response to an oil shortage. (Imagine that -- an oil shortage) The Department of Transportation analyzed data from that period, and in a report filed in 1975, concluded that DST cut down on energy consumption by only 1% during the months of March and April. A second report, filed a year later, reduced that percentage -- and found no change whatsoever.

When politicians are weighing their choices on energy policy, they often cite outdated research from the 70s, or worse -- they look back to good ol' Ben Franklin's days, when things like Air Conditioners, Tivo, and the Internet didn't exist. People's consumption habits have changed. We can't look to the past for answers. We have to scrutinize the present while listening to the whisper of the future in the back of our minds.

"What can I do about it?" you ask.

Well, besides writing your state Representative and demanding the befuddled U.S. Congress come to an agreement on ANYTHING, the little things always go a long way. During DST's cooler months, fight the temptation to turn that thermostat way up. Are you using more than one light? Try opening the blinds instead. Don't blast the air-conditioner, creating new Arctic conditions in your living room. Turn on a fan. Or better -- open a window.

Energy bills have skyrocketed since the 70s, and it's no wonder why, when politicians are thinking in terms of 8-track tapes. There are more people on this planet, fighting for every watt of power. NRGLab's SH-box, which generates clean electricity from crystal technology, may very well bring energy costs down to the point where we can say: "Who cares about DST? Let's not fight. Let's crank up the AC!"

Reusable rockets may revitalize space program

As experts around the world explore the possibility of an Apocalyptic future, what once was thought science-fiction, may in fact afford our species its salvation. Outer space -- the last, and greatest frontier of all. Once the atmosphere dips below breathe-ability, or we've laid radioactive waste to the Earth, we'll be forced to seek sanctuary elsewhere. Like space stations.

However, there are obstacles to space travel. According to Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, whose shuttle 'Dragon' is currently docked with the International Space Station, the future "will depend on our ability to make rockets that can be used more than once."

Under the United States' current launch model, which utilizes multiple-stage, single-use booster rockets, commercial space transportation will never be economically viable. The National Air and Space Administration (NASA) lists the average cost of a rocket launch at $450 million. For one launch! And, like most household bills these days, a majority of that $450 million goes towards fuel.

Musk went on to point out that "every mode of transportation we're used to ... they're all reusable. But not rockets. If we can't make rockets reusable, the cost is just prohibitive."

Musk, who has taken on a number of energy-tech projects before in Tesla Motors and Solar City, estimated that a reusable rocket could reduce the cost of a launch up 100%. SpaceX's current prototype, the Grasshopper, would jettison a shuttle out of the atmosphere, turn around, and then return to Earth, ready to go again.

This week, Musk is meeting with legislators in Texas to discuss the potential for a commercial launch site in their state. (SpaceX currently conducts theirs from Florida's Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Military bases, which the government doesn't mind renting out for a 'reasonable fee', of course)

Entrepreneurs like Musk are ringing in a new era of independent space exploration. Before, you had to be an astronaut, and endure years of rigorous training. Now, you only have to have a few million dollars in the bank.

Yet, in order to be considered a realistic option should the need for a speedy exodus from out planet ever arise (See: meteors over Russia), mass space transportation is going to require cost-efficient energy -- and lots of it. Although NRGLab's SH-box hasn't quite reached that stage yet, it represents one giant leap towards the future. In fact, the SH-box may very well negate the need for us to leave the planet all together. Perhaps we'll be able to put an end to global warming, and call Earth our home for another hundred thousand years.

Because we can't outrun our problems. Eventually, they catch up to us. We need to confront our problems head on, unafraid to admit fault and make major changes. NRGLab is ready to help the world make a change.

Clean-energy. Living in space stations. Entrepreneurial astronauts. Science fiction? Not anymore.

Future Waterworld features new trade routes: no Kevin Costner

As the ice caps continue to  melt, new trade routes through the arctic are expected to open by mid-Century, increasing trade between the United States and Asia. Sure, we may be forced to live in Waterworld, where pirates run amok in a Kevin Costner-less future, but hey -- at least the economy will see a boost.

For hundreds of millions of years, the Arctic has been an impenetrable sheath of ice, forcing seafarers to navigate around the obstacle through man-made canals. Currently, trade between the U.S. and Asia runs primarily through the Suez and Panama canals; but as the planet continues to warm, the Northwest passage could become the next most-viable trade route. Hear that, Canada? With your meteor defense system and this added economic leverage -- you're on the verge of becoming the next superpower.

According to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Plus, man may soon be able to pass directly over the North Pole for the first time in Earth's history. Due to the albeido effect, where in which reflective light-colored ice is replaced by murky sun-absorbing water, the more the ice melts, the hotter the planet gets; becoming a viscous, downward spiral ending in the Apocalypse.

So, global warming is growing exponentially, and moderate energy policies aren't doing enough to address the seriousness of this fact. Last fall, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center recorded the level of Arctic ice at an historic low. Now, scientists are scrambling to try and predict the consequences of heightened sea levels.

According to Laurence Smith, a geography professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, "The (Arctic) distances are vast. The landscape is boggy and wet and covered with lakes. What you see is a shutdown of human access on land and an increase of human access in the ocean."

Ships capable of plowing through an estimated four-feet of ice will be able to make the 'over-the-globe' trip by 2050. This new route will save ships 30% of current travel times through the Northern Sea Route.

It's nice to try and paint a silver lining on global warming. I joke about Waterworld and amphibious adaptations, but really -- melting ice caps shouldn't be seen as a positive thing. Although offering temporary economic perks, new sea routes are but a glimpse of a bitter long-term reality. The water is rising. The question is, when will our ancestors have to build themselves houseboats?

Besides, there are other ways to boost the economy! Like investing in clean-energy. Developing new strategies through collaboration. We don't have to simply accept our dismal fate. We have the ability to change the world. It starts with slowing global warming by cutting down on fossil fuel consumption. And how can we do that without descending into chaos?

Visit the NRGLab homepage at http://nrglab.asia/ to learn more about how the SH-box is the answer.

Carbon out of control

According to a study published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon emissions have increased by nearly three-million ppm (parts per million) since this time last year -- the second largest spike in over fifty years.  'Parts per million' equates to the number of carbon particles relative to oxygen in the atmosphere -- meaning the air we breathe is slowly becoming less breathable.

"So what?" you ask. "It's just air..."

Well, the increase also means "the prospects of keeping climate change below that 1.9-degree goal are fading away," said Pieter Tans, one NOAA's scientists, who operates out of their Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory. Current levels are 41% higher than the pre-industrial period. Since then, the global temperature has risen 0.7 degrees Celsius.

John Reilly, co-director of the Science and Policy of Global Change, estimates that temperatures will rise another 1.3 and 2.3 degrees Celsius between now and 2050. Were will the world be then?

Food production will become unstable because of unpredictable weather patterns. Super-storms will cease to be 'super' -- they'll be the norm. The oceans will rise. More UV rays will pierce the atmosphere, meaning more cases of skin cancer. High insurance rates. Leading to medical reform. And higher taxes.

The effects of global warming stretch far beyond the environment, which should concern people in the first place. But for those out there who have trouble looking twenty-five, fifty years into the future, just ask yourself why your energy bills and taxes have steadily increased during the same period the Earth has gotten warmer.

Everything is connected. This isn't just a philosophical principle: it's an aspect of our everyday lives. We've identified the source of this spike in carbon emissions: fossil fuels. However, as sophisticated countries like Singapore and Germany work towards alternative energy sources, addressing consumption concerns, developing countries, in a struggle to play catch-up with the rest of the world, are burning more oil than ever.

Again (and not to stress the point too far), but the climate crisis we're currently faced with can't be solved by any one nation. It's going to require a collaborative effort -- public, private, and federal partnerships coming together to face the harsh reality of what reckless oil consumption has done to our world.

By introducing the SH-box to market, NRGLab aims to bring global warming to a stand-still. Keeping the increase below 1.9 degrees Celsius will allow the world to focus on solving many of the other fundamental problems facing us today. Like war. Religious intolerance. Educational reform. Global warming is only the beginning.

Big Apple hosts redesign competition

New York City, also known as the 'Big Apple', one of the greatest cities on Earth, is proving the perfect example of how government can engage its citizens in order to re-imagine the world we live in. The Reinvent Payphone Challenge, hosted by Quirky, an industrial design firm located out of New York, asked contests to rethink the design of thousands of outdated, dilapidated payphones currently plaguing the city. In fact, there are roughly 11,000 public payphones throughout New York's five boroughs, and anyone who's ever visited the city knows that most of those have been reduced to germ-infested piss-booths. Let's face it -- in the age of smartphones, who uses a payphone anymore?

They've gone the way of the beeper, some say. Yet the eleven finalists of the Reinvent Challenge beg to differ. Crowds gathered last night to listen to some truly tremendous visions for the future. From straight-out-of-Star-Wars ideas like a kinetic sidewalk that harvests energy from everyday foot-traffic, to more advanced versions of the iPad, the event oozed creativity and ambition.

According to Citywide Chief Information and Innovation Officer Rahul Merchant, the eleven finalists were chosen from more than 120 submissions. "It was hard to get it down to 11," he said. "The ideas were phenomenal and so full of innovation."

The most shared trait among the 'payphones of tomorrow' was a large touch-screen, which featured information for businesses and offered directional help. But who knows how far these ideas will go. "The ideas we got from tonight will be incorporated with research we’ve done prior to the design challenge," said Merchant, who went on to add: "This is New York City. We set global standards. The way we do that is to get the best ideas from everybody’s minds.”

He's got that right. Now, if only governments and corporations across the globe were as willing to tap into our greatest natural resource -- the minds of our people! -- to identify current problems and help come up with creative solutions. What a world we might live in...

Of course, the conservative minded-reader immediately asks, "But how is the city planning on funding these 'payphones of tomorrow', with their fancy screens and whatnot? Sure, idealism is nice, but there's always a price tag."

The project is being funded by public and private partnerships (with advertisers pitching in just a bit of course... who doesn't want to see a McDonald's symbol pop up on their payphone touchscreen?), so the city of New York won't end up spending a single tax dollar to revamp their infrastructure. Hear that? Not a single tax dollar!

What Quirky has done for payphones, NRGLab has done for electricity production. Now all it takes is implementation -- taking that next step. We've identified the problems facing climate change. There's too much carbon in the atmosphere. The icecaps are melting too quickly. We rely too much on fossil fuels. We consume way, way too much. Are we going to stand idly by as we let the world turn into a New York city phone booth? Or are we finally willing to accept the fact that it's time to come together as a community, a nation, a planet, and solve these issues together?

To check out the eleven finalists in The Reinvent Payphone Challenge, visit NYC.gov's Facebook page. For more information on NRGLab, visit http://nrglab.asia/

Big business addresses climate change?

Late last week, the U.S. Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) gave their recommendations to President Obama regarding climate change. According to the BCSE, investing in green-energy will not only stimulate the tech industry, but could pull the entire economy out of the hole Americans currently find themselves in. Thank goodness for the sequester then, which, if left unresolved, will result in billions of federal spending cuts, leaving little to no room for green-energy investing. Hooray, for split Congresses.

In a letter from the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change to the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) “the window to prevent catastrophic climate change is rapidly closing.” The Task Force requested suggestions on how federal agencies could cut down on their carbon emissions. In reply, the BCSE released a factbook entitled 'Sustainable Energy in America', in which they identified economic-based legislation as the “optimal policy.” They also recommended the following measures:

1. Allow existing power plants to achieve target emission rates.

2. Use an output-based approach to setting emissions standards for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) of greenhouse gases.

3. The Department of Energy should implement efficiency measures, including appliance and equipment standards, manufactured housing efficiency standards, and previously announced programs for commercial buildings.

4.The federal government should follow through on commitments made in the White House Executive Order 13514, including making greater use of federal performance contracting, aggregating procurements within federal agencies, between federal agencies, and leveraged with state and local government procurements, and clarify that Combined Heat and Power (CHP) qualifies under this executive order.

5.Federal agencies should support efforts to strengthen the smart grid, especially distributed generation at disaster centers, hospitals, etc., and should implement and update climate change adaptation plans to improve resilience.

6.Congress should continue to support research, development and deployment of homegrown and clean energy sources.

These actions could significantly cut into America's carbon emissions, and would set a positive example for the rest of the world to follow. As previously quoted, “the window to prevent catastrophic climate change is rapidly closing.” We have passed the development period. It' time for implementation. It's time for change. It's time for the SH-box and other innovative green initiatives to finally get the recognition, and the funding, they deserve and need to save the world.

The SH-box: because sometimes it's cloudy, rainy and windless

Opponents of alternative energy, namely oil corporations and those currently with the most to lose financially, are quick to point out the shortcomings of current options. Electric cars don’t have a far enough range. Solar panels are useless on stormy days. Windmills are impractical eyes-sores that work best on stormy days. Obviously, there are some conflicting ideas here on which direction the world should take, even among the environmental enthusiasts. Solar. Wind. Nuclear. Hydrogen. The list goes on, and on, and on…

Yet every point brought up by the skeptics is valid. Solar panels are limited due to their reliance on photovoltaic cells. Wind doesn't produce enough energy to meet staggering demands. Nuclear is dangerous (See: Japanese meltdown). Hydrogen is too expensive. So, should we just give up and stick with a doomed infrastructure; counting the days until the oil’s all dried up, and the skies are black, and the water’s tainted, and the Earth wilts away?

At NRGLab, their answer is a resounded, “Heck, no!” Based out of Singapore, NRGLab has developed poly-crystalline technology for producing low cost electricity from natural heat. Self-contained generators called SH-boxes pump out electricity for as little as $.03 per kw, and with absolutely no carbon emissions! The SH-box will run for more than ten years, too. It will outlast your cell phone, your car — most things being produced and sold in this disposable world we live in. But not the SH-box. No need to mount it on your roof, either. The SH-box can be installed anywhere and can be integrated into any current energy grid.

Have I caught your interest? Want to know more? Check out NRGLab on Youtube: NRGLABSGD. You can even get a copy of their business plan here: http://nrglab.asia/images/NRGLAB_Str…3_SH_Boxes.pdf

NRGLab is working towards creating a renewable, reliable, and sustainable future for billions of people across planet Earth. All it takes is vision backed by innovative thinking. Luckily, the scientists and partners at NRGLab are brimming with both.

National unplugged day: did you last?

Can you recall the last time you went 24-hours without watching TV, surfing the web, or playing mind-numbing games on your ironically named ‘smart’phone? No? That’s OK. Most people can’t.

Friday was National Unplugged Day, a movement started by the Sabbath Manifesto encouraging people to look up from their screens and embrace life. Again, it’s OK if you weren't one of the thousands who took the pledge to unplug their favorite electronics. People have jobs, responsibilities, bills to pay, etc. We live in a screen-oriented world.

Nowadays, going a full day without looking at some sort of screen seems barbaric. “Leave my home without my cell phone? But what if something bad happens?” Isn’t that always the first excuse we jump to? As technology has advanced, we’ve figured out ways to better integrate it into our daily routines. However, it has reached a point where technology and the individual may be too intertwined. It’s become a pseudo-parasitic relationship, where we feel we NEED our phones, our laptops, our TVs because without them — would we still exist? Without feedback from another person, without that link to the outside world, without that constant stimulation, the greatest fear is that we’ll be too easily forgotten. We’ll disappear, in a sense; chalked up as ‘just another smudge’ on the blackboard before being erased.

But we don’t have to have this addictive relationship with technology. Like all good things in life, it’s a matter of moderation. We need to look at devices like our smartphone, not as vestigial appendage, but as the tool it is.

On the official Unplugged website, people posted some of the things they planned to do while on this 24-hour tech fast. Most were family activities. Others were more ‘me-time’ oriented like reading, writing and long walks. (Starting to sound like an online dating profile) Don’t these activities sound a lot more enticing than mindlessly shopping for things you don’t need on Amazon, or stalking one of your friend’s Facebook profiles for pictures of them with an old fling you used to date?

If you weren’t able to take part in National Unplugged Day this year, I urge you to take the pledge in 2014. Remember — today’s technology is an amazing gift left by generations of inventors that struggled and sacrificed. Let’s never take that for granted.

Finger-pointing: who's behind whose cyberattacks?

Over the past month, the U.S. government has criticized China for reportedly hacking government and private corporation databases. Now, China’s the one doing the finger-pointing. According to a statement released earlier today by their Ministry of National Defense, the U.S was responsible for 63% of an average of 144,000 monthly cyberattacks last year. Says China, “Now who’s the bad guy?”

Apparently, world governments treat issues of treason and national security like kids on a playground running to teacher shouting, “But he… but she!” These allegations are just about as series as they come. Strained relationships, between any two countries nowadays, send ripples through the global economy that cannot be fully predicted. Unfortunately, when that happens, those ripples tend to cause a tsunami at one end of the world.

How can they tell who’s spying on who? IP addresses, of course. Don’t be fooled — every website you’ve ever visited, every link you’ve ever clicked, every email you’ve ever opened, sits floating around the infinity of the Internet, waiting to be traced and cataloged. A U.S. security firm by the name of Mandiant first brought allegations against the Chinese after they traced a hacking group to a Chinese military instillation. In their rebuttal, the Chinese government denied all accusations and attacked Mandiant’s report for a lack of empirical evidence.

“Everyone knows that the use of (stolen) IP addresses to carry out hacking attacks happens on an almost daily basis,” said Geng Yansheng, a representative for the Defense Ministry. Basically what he said was: “Everybody’s doing it… how could you possibly know..?”

In a move that one could only describe as the pot calling the kettle ‘black’, China now claims they’ve traced IP addresses back to U.S. military installations. But how can we believe anything they say if they’ve spent the past few weeks shredding IP addresses as so-called ‘proof’?

Cyber and drone warfare appear to be the two major players in the future of national ‘in’security. As these technologies improve, mankind will find ways to adapt to create new hacks; new holes in whatever system they poke and prod. Democracy and capitalism, systems which have gone digital over the last several decades, will become increasingly more vulnerable. We must protect intellectual property. We must preserve privacy. Without these things, the world will descend into primal chaos. When world super powers point fingers like whiny children, it begs the question: has technology made us all more primitive?