GOP Presidential candidate John McCain has been going around touting the idea of repealing the law against offshore drilling as a way of helping America's energy crisis and relieving our dependence on foreign oil.

In response to critics who say offshore drilling isn't environmentally sound policy, Bush III says that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, "little or no spillage took place" proving that offshore drilling's newer technologies make concerns a thing of the past.

Hold on there, buster. As Salon.com reports, 174 spills totaling about 3/4 million gallons of crude were reported during those two storms. Now that's not a huge amount of oil, to be sure, but any inadvertent spillage (can there be "advertent" spillage?) is too much weighed against the loss of wildlife, damage to beaches and waterfront homes, etc.

Lest you think, however, that I believe McCain is just as useless as the man he would follow into the White House, I think his idea of a $300 million prize for the developer of the battery technology that would led to the manufacture and sale of all-electric vehicles is a darned good one. Sure, it has some holes and the question of how you pay for it has to be answered, but that's true of both candidates' plans pre-election. The idea shows McCain is capable of having a good and at least seemingly original idea about major issues.

The price of gas, which just broke through the $4/gal. barrier here in Monterey about 10 days or so ago was at $4.30 and up today.

I'm telling you, we won't see reasonable gas prices until we dramatically decrease our demand for this stuff. The oil companies tip-toed up to $4 and now that they have us properly desensitized, $5 is definitely within the realm of likelihood by the end of the year. Higher if W and his neocon cronies bomb Iran.

Yeesh.

Let's play "what if" for a minute.

What if there was a way to get free energy to your home or business in such a way that no carbon footprint was created? Just what if it were possible to eliminate, as quickly as appropriate, all use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy and furnish power for every home and village on the planet with zero impact on the planet?

Just play along for a minute. What would happen? Could such a technology actually disrupt the $20 trillion energy business with a technology suite that nobody could put a meter on? Would the existing energy infrastructure, on the brink of collapse, find a way to prevent this from happening? Should the inventor(s) of this brilliant new theoretical energy source be allowed to bring his product to market? Or is the worldwide socio-economic impact of such a plan so disruptive that it ought not be allowed to see the light of day regardless of its potentially world-changing impact?

If Dr. Stephen Greer has his way, we may face that decision within the next 18 months. Greer, who is (in)famous for having brought the glare of publicity to bear on the UFO question by means of his highly successful Disclosure Project over the past few years, has just launched a new effort called The Orion Project. His goal is nothing less than to "inform, educate, and help supply all peoples of our planet with sustainable, non-polluting power."

Without going into details -- I encourage you to visit the Web site to read as much as you like -- Dr. Greer's first effort is to raise $3 million to put the first phase of this effort into place. He doesn't see this happening through the usual high-profile investment sources because they're all tied into the group he calls the "petro-elite." He's asking ordinary people to donate $30 or more to his 501c(3) non-profit foundation to fund this first research.

I don't know if any or all of what he says makes any sense. But I like his approach. I like his attitude. And I like his cause. $3 million is nothing. I'd like to see him have that chance. How about you?

My new good friend Tobi Lytle sent me this link to a marvelous 20-minute presentation on "The Story of Stuff" that provides some outstanding incentive for us to reconsider the economy of obsolescence and consumerism into which we have developed.

You don't have to watch it all at once; it's chapter-ized into manageable bite-sized chunks. But please do take the time to view it and, more importantly, to decide how you can help be part of the solution in 2008!

As a member of the the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), I get some very thought-provoking and insightful videos, newsletters, CDs and other such great content. Today, they sent me a link to a one-minute "Shift" video featuring one of my favorite funny men, Swami Beyondananda. Here's the video. It's cute, informative and only takes about a minute to watch:

My friend Tony Seton sent me this enlightening and challenging YouTube video about global warming. The guy who made it makes such eminent sense that I don't see a flaw in his reasoning. Do yoU?

Famed activist and spiritual leader Van Jones inspires higher thinking and clearer action in this one-minute must-see video:

Ever since former Vice-President Al Gore -- the man who used to be the next President of the United States until the GOP flat-out stole the election -- won the Nobel Peace Prize, the media has been clamoring for him to enter the presidential lottery once again.

Not one person of repute from Gore's family or circle of friends and not one knowledgeable Democratic Party leader has seriously suggested Gore might make another run at the White House. Gore, for his part, has consistently denied any interest in running or holding the office. Yet every time you hear Gore's name mentioned these days, the media focus is on the "Will he or won't he?" question rather on the "Look what he's done and is doing" aspect of this great man's life.

Until and unless Gore announces his plans to run for the White House, it is dishonest and petty for the media to continue to downplay his power, popularity and vision on the environment so they can speculate about something about which their ignorance knows no bounds.

Former Vice-President of the United States. Elected President by the people, denied the office by the GOP and the Supreme Court. Nobel Peace Prize winner. Not to mention years and years of public service in the Congress. Isn't that enough for one man's life?

Yeesh.

The Valley Transportation Authority up in Silicon Valley where a couple of my daughters live held a big public hearing last night on their plans to slash bus service on "unprofitable" lines. More than 100 people showed up to object. The VTA gave 25 of them 2 minutes each. Not one person spoke in support.

So the board voted to allow the changes. The only reason they have public hearings is because the politicians get paid for attending them. They don't really listen to or give a crap about what anyone at the hearing says. The decision was made behind closed doors a long time ago.

This notion that government programs have to be profitable or pay their own way is insidious. One big reason we have government around to do stuff is because there are a lot of social needs to be met that private enterprise wouldn't meet precisely because of its need to be profitable. Providing public transportation so that those who either cannot afford their own vehicles or who choose to reduce their negative impact on the environment can get around to the places they need to go is a legitimate function of the government. It is not one that needs to be profitable.

You can bet your sweet patootie that if the folks riding those buses were rich people or even upper middle class folks, service wouldn't get cut. This is a tax policy decision, pure and simple. The government can't figure out how to make ends meet with its tax base so it cuts services. But it cuts those that affect the lower socio-economic groups every single time. The municipalities that make up the VTA have in recent months voted millions and millions of dollars in art subsidies and park maintenance but they can't scrape together a few bucks so that poor folks can get from Point A to Point B without having to walk most of the way.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. You can judge the moral uprightness of any society by the way it treats its least fortunate. By that standard, governments broadly in the U.S. get failing grades.

I don't do the grocery shopping in our family, so I'm not sure the lilting query, "Paper or plastic?" is still being raised at the checkout. I do remember years ago researching diligently to see whether paper or plastic was better (or perhaps less bad) for the environment and concluding it was probably sixes.

I was apparently wrong.

In a piece on Salon.com this morning, I learned that plastic bags -- something like a trillion of them and growing -- are killing us.

Here are two key excerpts, though I recommend reading the whole piece.

"The plastic bag is an icon of convenience culture, ... numbering in the trillions. They're made from petroleum or natural gas with all the attendant environmental impacts of harvesting fossil fuels. Every year, Americans throw away some 100 billion plastic bags.... It's equivalent to dumping nearly 12 million barrels of oil."

"Only 1 percent of plastic bags are recycled worldwide -- about 2 percent in the U.S. -- and the rest, when discarded, can persist for centuries."

Environmentalists recommend you use canvas or cloth bags over and over again and avoid the whole paper-or-plastic question. But if you can't or don't want to do that, paper -- preferably with at least 40% recycled material -- is vastly preferable to plastic.