Energy Kids


education (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

Energy Kids.  There are so many healthy, fun and beneficial Green Projects related to educating our Children.

Do you have more you would like published?

Are you available and qualified to create a Presentation demonstrating a new way for our Students to THINK about sustainability?


earth energy Solutions is grateful to BEACON protect precious water

EPA To Provide Nearly $10 Million to Clean Up Beaches Across the Nation/The agency launches improved website for beach advisories and closures

Release Date: 01/31/2012

Contact Information: Enesta Jones (News Media Only),, 202-564-7873, 202-564-4355 Denise Hawkins (Public Inquiries Only),, 202-566-1384

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced that it will provide $9.8 million in grants to 38 states, territories and tribes to help protect the health of swimmers at America’s beaches. The agency also launched an improved website for beach advisories and closings, which will allow the public to more quickly and easily access the most current water quality and pollution testing information for more than 6,000 U.S. beaches.

The website, called BEACON, has the capability to update as frequently as every two hours based on new data provided by states, territories and tribes. Users will have access to mapped location data for beaches and water monitoring stations, monitoring results for various pollutants such as bacteria and algae, and data on public notification of beach water quality advisories and closures. For the first time, users can also access reports that combine notifications and water quality monitoring data. The enhanced system also uses enhanced map navigation and report display tools.

The majority of beach advisories and closures in the United States are due to water test results indicating bacterial contamination, which can make people sick. Bacterial contamination comes from a variety of sources.. Some examples are sewer overflows, untreated stormwater runoff, boating wastes, wildlife and pet waste, and malfunctioning septic systems.

During each swimming season, state and local health and environmental protection agencies monitor the quality of water at the nation’s beaches. When bacteria levels in the water are too high, these agencies notify the public by posting beach warnings or closing the beach.

The grants will help local authorities monitor beach water quality and notify the public of conditions that may be unsafe for swimming. This is the 12th year that EPA is providing beach grant funds, bringing the total amount EPA has made available to nearly $111 million.
As a result, the number of monitored beaches has more than tripled to more than 3,600 in 2010. Grant applications must be received within 60 days of publication of EPA’s notice in the Federal Register. EPA expects to award the grants later this year.

View EPA’s enhanced beach advisory and closing information:

More information on the grants:

Clean Water Clear Air … actions we must take now

 Did you read how many wells are contaminated with toxins from runoff?
Let’s make sure this doesn’t happen again!

Dear eeSGroup,

It’s pretty simple: our water should not be used as dumping grounds for polluters.

The White House has been working to make sure that our wetlands and small streams finally get the strong protection they need.  Let the Administration know you support these strong clean water policies. Ask them to finalize the proposal to close loopholes in the Clean Water Act now!

Many small streams and wetlands are currently vulnerable to pollution and destruction because of policy decisions made by the last Administration, after confusing Supreme Court rulings.  Last year the Obama Administration proposed to fix this problem.  But powerful special interests oppose these common sense updates and are attempting to delay this vital work. Clean Water Action members like you can make sure the President continues to move forward to protect streams, wetlands and other water threatened by polluters.

These streams and wetlands aren’t just geographical features.  They provide drinking water for over 117 million people, serve as critical habitat for fish and wildlife, protect us against floods, and filter pollution.  They are vital parts of our water infrastructure and need to be protected by the Clean Water Act.  You can ensure this happens by joining thousands of Americans who are telling the President that we support his efforts.

Before the distraction of an election season takes over, we need your help to show President Obama that we agree with him that clean water is the foundation of healthy economies and healthy communities. Let’s remind him that our nation’s clean water progress needs to continue!

Please take action today!


Jennifer Peters, National Water Programs Coordinator

Competitive commercial – residential Electric Rates for TX

Rates for 09/17/2010

Commercial Rates
12 months
24 months
36 months
Houston Zone (CenterPoint):
7.05 7.35 7.59
North Zone (OnCor):
6.82 7.10 7.32
South Zone (AEP Central):
6.80 7.06 7.25
West Zone (AEP North):
6.59 6.82 7.08
Residential Rates
12 months
24 months
36 months
Houston Zone (CenterPoint):
10.5 11.1 13.3
North Zone (OnCor):
10.3 10.9 12.9
South Zone (AEP Central):
10.3 10.9 13.3
West Zone (AEP North):
10.3 10.9 12.7

Affordable Energy <- Click

Avatar Trees Found on Earth (Slideshow)

Image credit: AP Photo/Matt Sayles

The visually stunning movie Avatar dominated the box office earlier this year and sparked conversations about everything from the environmental movement to climate change to conspiracies. But the real stars of the film were the trees—specifically the shimmering “Tree of Souls.”

The forests of Pandora were spectacular, but intergalactic travel is not necessary to find incredible trees that look like they grew on another planet. Indeed, there are plenty right here on earth.

SOURCE of Slideshow:

Play it safe!

Children are curious but they are also more sensitive to substances in the environment.

Protect children from accidental poisoning by locking up your household cleaners, pesticides, paint thinners, and other substances.

Household products are safe and effective when used properly. (yet most of them quite toxic)

Remember to read the label.

685KB, runtime 0:41) | More ways to prevent poisoning.

Want more tips? Visit EPA’s Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment.
# # #

Melaleuca tree

There are a multitude of non-toxic and non-caustic cleaning products available on the market.  We found the tea tree oil based Melaleuca products to work the absolute best without spending more.

Another BENEFIT of the Melaleuca products is that those engineered with the tea tree oil are magnified with safety! 

The tea tree oil is the strongest naturally occurring cleaning, antiseptic, antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral substance known to man. That natural power goes a very long way to living in a safer environment!

Reducing pollutants into our waterways is not thought of typically; this is yet another benefit of these products!

Can’t put a price on our Children’s safety but it sure is nice when we don’t have to go over budget for that safety!!!

CSea Perkins

California to Get 33% of its Power from Renewables by 2020

We at FLIglobal are approached by many businesses needing to reduce carbon emissions and their expense along with fuel dependency.  Below is an article seen in TreeHugger today on how aggressive CA is and how HUGE this goal is.
Let us not wait to be approached; get out there and educate with solutions to pollution.  There are immediate results in carbon emission reduction when using eeLube / eeFuel.  This will greatly aid CA’s aggressive goals.
Go to private industry, all fleets, one truck to thousands; continue to help others Make a Difference one tank full at a time…

california renewable-energy-standard photo
Photo via All American Patriots

Nearly a week ago, the California Senate passed an ambitious energy bill that would require the state to get 33% of its power from renewable sources by 2020. Greens cheered. Then Gov. Schwarzenegger declared he would veto it. Greens booed. Now, the governor has signed an executive mandate that once again commits California to a renewable energy standard of getting a full third of its power from renewable sources by 2030. Should we cheer again?

It seems we should. The governator never had any problems with such an ambitious renewable energy target–he, along with a number of smaller clean energy companies felt that the Senate bill would threaten smaller projects, and that complex rules would stymie growth. He also felt that a clause limiting the amount of renewable energy that could be purchased out of state was protectionist. So, he circumvented the problem by signing an equally ambitious executive order. Schwarzenegger says he plans on vetoing the Senate bill.

The new target makes California the state with the highest renewable energy standard by far. The only other state in contention is Hawaii, which has set its sights on getting 40% of its power from renewable sources–but not until 2030.

According to Green Inc, as of now, the major power providers in California (PG&E, Con Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric) are already required to get 20% of their energy from renewable sources. The new mandate will continue that trend, and state legislators, Schwarzenegger, and many green watchers believe, will keep California on the cutting edge of clean tech and renewable energy development.

State-by-State Temperature Increases and Federal legislation in the US

In this post you will find ample justification to spread the word about climate change and how people can reduce their toxic carbon footprint immediately while putting money back in their pocket.

You can see the current state of the legislation being called for as well as individually projected temperature changes by State.

climate change and global warming: Oil refineries and petro-chemical plants line the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The Conservancy is calling for federal legislation in the United States that will:

  • Provide incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation and land use change and sequester additional emissions by restoring forests. This should include both market and non-market components to support international and domestic forest carbon efforts.

We are a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a coalition of major corporations and leading environmental organizations urging the federal government to enact legislation requiring significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

In January 2009, USCAP unveiled a comprehensive Blueprint for legislative action, outlining recommendations to the U.S. Congress and the Administration on how to fight climate change. The package calls for the creation of a federal cap-and-trade system that includes tough timelines and targets for emissions reductions. It also allows companies to meet their caps by supporting forest carbon projects, and it calls for dedicated funding to support adaptation projects around the world.

International Policy Frameworks

The Conservancy is working with world leaders to build support for an international climate change agreement that includes all major emitters and sources of emissions, including deforestation.  We also advocate for funding to implement nature-based adaptation strategies to help buffer the impacts of climate change on people.

U.S. State and Regional

In the United States, state and regional efforts are catalyzing efforts in Congress to establish federal climate change legislation. The Conservancy is helping develop and design of state- and region-wide emission reduction strategies.

For example, The Nature Conservancy worked with policy makers and other stakeholders to establish a model rule for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) that will require significant emission reductions in the Northeast. And in California, the Conservancy provided insight and direction for the state’s landmark climate law, AB 32, which established a comprehensive regulatory and market system to achieve real, quantifiable and cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.


Below are the top ten states for predicted temperature increases. Download the analysis and see what’s predicted for your state.

1. Kansas 10.4
2. Nebraska 10.3
3. Iowa 10.2
4. South Dakota 10.0
5. Oklahoma 9.9
6. Missouri 9.9
7. Illinois 9.6
8. Nevada 9.4
9. Utah 9.4
10. Colorado 9.3

“If current trends continue, the weather and landscapes of the future will be nearly unrecognizable compared to what we are used to.”

— Jonathan Hoekstra, director of climate change for The Nature Conservancy

State-by-State Temperature Increases

Find out what the projected temperature increases are for your state — download the analysis.

Climate Wizard

climate wizard, climate change

Explore the Conservancy’s new climate wizard tool, which let’s you see projected temperature and precipitation changes for your state or country.

The most powerful solution to pollution we know of is the companion fuel additives which begin reducing emissions immediately with the first dosage.  Then the gentle carbon buildup removal continues to clean higher performance.  With continued use, adequate cleaning is accomplished as well as the most money going back into your pocket.

We reduce annual vehicle maintenance expense of large fleets and individuals alike.  We believe every fill up of gas / diesel / biodiesel with our products contributes to the overall goal.  Reduce toxic carbon emissions, improve air quality and quality of life. For details of how it works

Blue Man Group on Global Warming

Find your place to effectively defend and protect the environment.

Immediately reduce carbon emissions from your vehicles, trucks, boats, lawn equipment, big rigs and everything in between.

Try before you buy Free protection on your next 150 gallons of gas / diesel or biofuel.  We put our money where our mouth is, so to speak!

If you want supplemental income in the Green Industry, appreciate the long-term benefits of Crusade marketing and unrestricted assistance to businesses and individuals throughout North America, look no further!

New York Requiring New Government Buildings to Go Green

This is a heads-up on the opportunities in NYC alone.  Get outside of the box and see the powerful opportunities you have to Make A Difference.
Written by Megan Treacy on Sept 4, 09

Governor Paterson of New York has been using his political power for good recently.  In May, he ordered all state agencies to switch from bottled to tap water and yesterday he signed the State Green Building Construction Act which requires all new construction and renovations of government buildings to meet green guidelines.

The state’s Office of General Services (OGS) will be in charge of the new building standards.  While the guidelines haven’t been written yet, they will probably borrow heavily from LEED certification requirements.  The OGS has 31 LEED-accredited designers and every new construction project overseen by the agency is assigned a LEED professional to identify sustainable building opportunities.

USA-FORESTS/ASPEN – SAD – mitigate global warming

Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD) seen throughout the Rocky Mountain States

Protect and Defend the environment – Make A Difference

Date: 04-Sep-09
Country: US
Author: U.S. Forest Service/Handout

To Match Feature USA-FORESTS/ASPEN Photo: Reuters
Photo: Reuters

Aspen trees in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Idaho are seen in this undated photograph.

The American West is losing its autumn colors as global warming begins to bite and there is far more at stake than iconic scenery.

Aspen, the white-barked trees with golden leaves that gave their name to the famed Colorado ski resort, have been dying off across the Rocky Mountain states.

The die-off is puzzling but some foresters point to climate change.

the truth behind fuel additives

lamb-black-sheep-facetofaceGoing green has many faces, here are some powerful solutions, little known in North America.

Learn the truth about unique / extremely effective nanotechnology fuel additives, eeLube and eeFuel.

They immediately begin reducing emissions, carbon buildup while improving performance, mileage and longevity. FREE OFFERS specs and video proof.


Gasoline additive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Fuel additive)
Jump to: navigation, search

Gasoline additives increase gasoline‘s octane rating or act as corrosion inhibitors or lubricants, thus allowing the use of higher compression ratios for greater efficiency and power, however some carry heavy environmental risks. Types of additives include metal deactivators, corrosion inhibitors, oxygenates and antioxidants.

[edit] Additives

[edit] External links

  • – Aftermarket lead replacement additives were scientifically tested and some were approved by the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs at the UK’s Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) in 1999.

[edit] See also

[edit] Additives in the Aftermarket and Controversy

Although motor oil is manufactured with numerous additives, aftermarket oil additives exist, too. A glaring inconsistency of mass-marketed aftermarket oil additives is that they often use additives which are foreign to motor oil. On the other hand, commercial additives are also sold that are designed for extended drain intervals (to replace depleted additives in used oil) or for formulating oils in situ (to make a custom motor oil from base stock). Commercial additives are identical to the additives found in off-the-shelf motor oil, while mass-marketed additives have some of each.

Some mass-market oil additives, notably the ones containing PTFE/Teflon (e.g. Slick 50)[5] and chlorinated paraffins (e.g. Dura Lube)[6], have caused a major backlash by consumers and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission which investigated many mass-marketed engine oil additives in the late 1990s. Although there is no reason to say that all oil additives used in packaged engine oil are good and all aftermarket oil additives are bad, there has been a tendency in the aftermarket industry to make unfounded claims regarding the efficacy of their oil additives. These unsubstantiated claims have caused consumers to be lured into adding a bottle of chemicals to their engines which do not lower emissions, improve wear resistance, lower temperatures, improve efficiency, or extend engine life more than the (much cheaper) oil would have. Many consumers are convinced that aftermarket oil additives work, but many consumers are convinced that they do not work and are in fact detrimental to the engine. The topic is hotly debated on the Internet.

Although PTFE, a solid, was used in some aftermarket oil additives, users alleged that the PTFE clumped together, clogging filters. Certain people in the 1990s have reported that this was corroborated by NASA[7] and U.S. universities.[8] One thing to note, in defense of PTFE, is that if the particles are smaller than what was apparently used in the 1980s and 1990s, then PTFE can be an effective lubricant in suspension.[9] The size of the particle and many other interrelated components of a lubricant make it difficult to make blanket statements about whether PTFE is useful or harmful. Although PTFE has been called “the slickest substance known to man,”[10][11] it would hardly do any good if it remains in the oil filter.

Graph of fuel consumption 2002 – 2008, know the market



Check out ‘Gasoline Prices by Month’

Gasoline Prices by Month

About PickensPlan

car fueling biofuel 15772 photos
1825 videos
14190 discussions
650 events
6995 blog posts

World’s Largest Companies Need to Double Pace of CO2 Reductions to Avoid Catastrophic Climate Change

by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 08.24.09

carbon chasm report image
image: Carbon Disclosure Project

Calling it a Carbon Chasm, the Carbon Disclosure Project reports that the world’s largest companies need to double the pace of their carbon emissions reduction efforts if catastrophic climate change is to be avoided:

Their new study shows that the Global 100 firms are on track for annual emission reductions of 1.9%, versus the 3.9% needed to reduce emissions 80% by 2050:

Few Companies Have Plans in Place Past 2012
Of the 92 companies surveyed with emission reductions targets with a self-imposed deadline, 84% have emission reductions targets in place for 2012 (the final year of the Kyoto Protocol) but have not put plans in place for reduction targets past that — the suggested reason being that they are waiting to see what comes out of the COP15 climate talks this December, where a successor to the Kyoto Protocol is (hopefully) enacted.

Strong Emission Reductions a Competitive Advantage
Paul Dickinson, CEO of the Carbon Disclosure Project:

While 73% of Global 100 companies have set some form of reduction target, the majority need to be far more aggressive if they are to achieve the long-term reductions required.  This is a time of huge opportunity for businesses to gain competitive advantage by reducing their own impact
on the climate and benefit from associated cost savings, as well as sparking major innovation around the production of new, lower carbon products and services.

Here’s How to Bridge the Carbon Chasm
The CDP recommends the following steps to rectify the situation:

1) Companies should set a CO2 reduction target (if they haven’t already), with clear baselines and target years;

2) Governments need to agree to clear medium and long-term reduction goals at the Copenhagen talks, to provide businesses with a framework for their reductions.

3) These targets should reflect the IPCC scientific recommendations — namely, 25-40% reductions by 2020 and 80-95% reductions by 2050.

Mitigation of global warming

What we are all about.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global carbon dioxide emissions 1800–2004

Global average surface temperature 1850 to 2007

Mitigation of global warming involves taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to enhance sinks aimed at reducing the extent of global warming.[1] This is in distinction to adaptation to global warming which involves taking action to minimize the effects of global warming. Mitigation is effective at avoiding warming, but not at rapidly reversing it.[2] Scientific consensus on global warming, together with the precautionary principle and the fear of abrupt climate change[3] is leading to increased effort to develop new technologies and sciences and carefully manage others in an attempt to mitigate global warming.

The Stern Review identifies several ways of mitigating climate change. These include reducing demand for emissions-intensive goods and services, increasing efficiency gains, increasing use and development of low-carbon technologies, and reducing non-fossil fuel emissions[4].

The energy policy of the European Union has set a target of limiting the global temperature rise to 2 °C [3.6 °F] compared to preindustrial levels, of which 0.8 °C has already taken place and another 0.5 °C is already committed. The 2 °C rise is typically associated in climate models with a carbon dioxide concentration of 400-500 ppm by volume; the current level as of January 2007 is 383 ppm by volume, and rising at 2 ppm annually. Hence, to avoid a very likely breach of the 2 °C target, CO2 levels would have to be stabilised very soon; this is generally regarded as unlikely, based on current programs in place to date.[5][6] The importance of change is illustrated by the fact that world economic energy efficiency is presently improving at only half the rate of world economic growth.[7]

At the core of most proposals is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through reducing energy use and switching to cleaner energy sources. Frequently discussed energy conservation methods include increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles (often through hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric cars and improving conventional automobiles), individual-lifestyle changes and changing business practices. Newly developed technologies and currently available technologies including renewable energy (such as solar power, tidal and ocean energy, geothermal power, and wind power) and more controversially nuclear power and the use of carbon sinks, carbon credits, and taxation are aimed more precisely at countering continued greenhouse gas emissions. More radical proposals which may be grouped with mitigation include geoengineering techniques ranging from carbon sequestration projects such as carbon dioxide air capture, to solar radiation management schemes such as the creation of stratospheric sulfur aerosols. The ever-increasing global population and the planned growth of national GDPs based on current technologies are counter-productive to most of these proposals.[8]

The Father of Cap-and-Trade Calls For… A Tax on Emissions

by Michael Graham Richard, Ottawa, Canada

co2 cap and trade image

Arguments Against Cap-and-Trade
In the 1960s, Thomas Crocker, then a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin, came up with an original solution (along with John Dales) to environmental problems: cap-and-trade. The concept is now familiar to us treehuggers, but not everybody thinks it is the best way to deal with global warming, starting with Mr Crocker himself (now 73 years old and retired).

Muir Glacier global warming photo
Photos: Global Warming Art

The Wall Street Journal quotes him as saying: “I’m skeptical that cap-and-trade is the most effective way to go about regulating carbon,” and adding that he prefers “an outright tax on emissions because it would be easier to enforce and provide needed flexibility to deal with the problem.”

Mr. Crocker sees two modern-day problems in using a cap-and-trade system to address the global greenhouse-gas issue. The first is that carbon emissions are a global problem with myriad sources. Cap-and-trade, he says, is better suited for discrete, local pollution problems. “It is not clear to me how you would enforce a permit system internationally,” he says. “There are no institutions right now that have that power.” […]The other problem, Mr. Crocker says, is that quantifying the economic damage of climate change — from floods to failing crops — is fraught with uncertainty. One estimate puts it at anywhere between 5% and 20% of global gross domestic product. Without knowing how costly climate change is, nobody knows how tight a grip to put on emissions.

These are interesting points, though I’m not quite convinced (like Felix Salmon).

One argument against cap-and-trade that I find more worrisome is that it’s vulnerable to political meddling because it is so complex. Scientists might say: “The best science we have tells us that what we need to do is this” but the once this has gone through the political machine and thousands of pages of unreadable legal jargon come out, you end up with something like the current U.S. climate bill (85% of carbon permits will be given away for free instead of being auctioned, and many other loopholes might lurk in the shadows).

On that front, a more direct tax on emissions might not be as politically palatable, but it would have the benefit of being a lot more transparent (the tax is this much per pound of CO2 and that’s it).

Of course we have to be pragmatic. A carbon tax isn’t helping anyone if it’s impossible to get into law. But I think that it would be possible – if very hard – to do if it was a revenue-neutral carbon tax; reduce income taxes by the same amount as you increase a carbon tax, and for most people the amount they pay in taxes wouldn’t go up (people with high carbon lifestyle might pay more while those with low carbon lifestyles might pay less, but that’s the point) and the incentives would be better aligned. We would be taxing “bads” (polluting emissions) instead of “goods” (work).

But we have to work with what we have. If that’s cap-and-trade, we should try to make it work as well as possible, and I’m not convince to give up support for cap-and-trade by Mr. Crocker’s arguments. I’m more worried that politicians will give nice speech and promise a lot, but not actually do much…

Via Wall Street Journal

%d bloggers like this: