Should we hate Obamacare?

In July of 2014 a Kaiser Foundation poll concluded that over 53% of Americans do not support Obamacare.  This negative opinion has reached an all-time high since the law was passed in 2010.  In fact, Obamacare has never had a majority of public support.  To date, only a little more than 1/3 of Americans have said they support it while approximately 1/2 have been against it.  The rest say they don’t understand it.  This is an interesting statistic since most of us are not affected by Obamacare.  There are only two key groups of people who are affected by it - the uninsured, and the wealthier self-sustained.  If you are one of these, you make up about 20% of the population. 

The most negative impact is felt by wealthier self-sustained Americans who are hit especially hard by tax increases.  With Obamacare, capital gains tax was dialed up from 15% to a total of 23.8%.  Obamacare also contains numerous other tax increases for persons earning over $200,000 per year.  Additionally, many of the self-sustained are forced to pay more for health insurance due to higher standards of coverage.  It’s easy to understand why the law is so terribly disliked by top wage earners.  This doesn’t come close to explaining the polls, though, because this group only accounts for about 6 percent of households.

Another purported negative is the sudden cancellation of millions of private insurance policies.  I say purported, because Forbes Magazine (a recognized conservative publication) states that most private insurance would have been cancelled anyway if Obamacare were not passed.  According to Forbes, private insurance has always been temporary at best.  Insurance companies keep these policies short so they can re-assess their risk every few years.   Forbes reports only 17% of all privatepolicies were written to last more than 2 years.  So, the claim that policies are cancelled due to Obamacare is nothing more than fallacy.

The obvious positive impact is felt by the previously uninsured – those who either had pre-existing conditions, or who were not adequately employed to afford health insurance.  This population accounts for about 14 percent of households.  Obamacare helped nearly 9 percent of these households, but still failed to reach nearly 5 percent of households due to varying rates of state participation.  But, in addition to insuring additional families, the Congressional Budget Office also predicts a long term benefit to the national debt.  By reducing long term medical costs, the CBO has now reduced their long term projection of increased national debt over the next 30 years.  Strangely, we don’t hear about this benefit from any conservative pundit despite their apparent concern over the national debt.

What about the economy?  Conservative pundits banter about the impacts Obamacare puts on the economy, citing wage cuts, job losses, slower economic recovery, and increased medical costs.  Unfortunately for them Forbes Magazine has hotly refuted all of these claims.  In fact, Forbes cites the opposite – the economy continues to grow, overall employment continues to increase, and medical costs continue to stay on par despite the so-called “burdens” of Obamacare.

We have heard over the years how Obamacare is a disaster but it appears this is becoming more and more difficult to prove.   Consequently, pundits have moved their focus away from the effects of Obamacare, and instead focus on how the bill was passed without transparency, thus relying on the “stupidity of the American voter”.  The facts are in, and in a recent follow up poll Kaiser asked if voters prefer to repeal Obamacare or modify it.  Interestingly, over 60% said we should keep and modify it.  Only about 35% said we should repeal it.  

Afterall, if Obamacare provides insurance to millions of disadvantaged and uninsurable families, protects doctors and hospitals from unpaid bills, improves the long term national debt, and causes no ill effect on the economy - what do we hate about that?  Maybe voters are not so stupid after all!

Tony F.

2014

The 12th Man - A Superbowl Diary

On the way to NYC

We departed Denver early Saturday morning wearing our Bronco orange and entering an airplane 80% full of Bronco fans bound for New York.  There were 2 Seahawk fans on the plane.  We heckled them jokingly and then wished them a good game.  The plane was abuzz with subdued excitement.

Five hours later, we were dropped, luggage and all, at the corner of 39^th and 6^th Street, just one block off Broadway, also known as Superbowl Avenue.  Our hotel was on 40^th, so we needed to roll our luggage uptown.  As we made our way to Superbowl Avenue, a NYC cop said, “You don’t want to go that way.  It’s a madhouse, and full of Seahawks!”  This was the first moment I suspected we may have a problem.  We took 6^th Street and checked in.

Lady Liberty salutes the orange sky

We spent several evening hours on foot, riding subways and ferries to catch the sights.  New York is a spectacular city well worth exploring.  Later that evening we popped into a classic Irish pub and enjoyed a few drinks amidst shouts of SEA! HAWKS!  There was no doubt that we Bronco fans were in the minority.  One buzzed Seahawk said, as if stating a mere fact, “It’s going to be a slaughter.  The Broncos have no idea what they are up against.”  I responded, “I guess we will see.”  I stood there recalling the Broncos Superbowl history.  Before ever winning a Superbowl, the Broncos had been beaten 4 times, twice by more than 30 points, including a brow beating by Joe Montana’s 49ers 55 to 10 – the worst point spread in bowl history.  There’s something about the pressure of the game that has made the Broncos implode.       I remained hopeful.

Sunday morning, we dressed in orange and continued taking in more of the city.  We walked until our feet hurt, occasionally throwing a high five to a fellow Bronco fan yelling “Go Broncos!”  Throughout the day, we tried to ignore entire crowds of fans yelling SEA! HAWKS!

As we boarded the subways and trains toward Metlife Stadium, we were surrounded by more and more Seahawk fans.  The Bronco fans were older, calmer, and more reflective.  The Seahawk fans were younger, louder, rambunctious, and ready for their first big win.  Our party of orange agreed that we were outnumbered at least 3 to 1.  It took two and a half difficult hours to get to Metlife, all the time in large crowds screaming SEA! HAWKS!  The 12^th Man was all around us.  Bronco fans responded with relatively weak renditions of “Lets Go Broncos”.

Once seated in the stadium, we were relieved to see that the orange colors were far brighter than the black and blue, so the Broncos appeared to be represented with a nice sprinkling of orange throughout the stadium.  It became clear, however, that the orange was just a sprinkle.  The 12^th man had most of the other seats.  Stadium announcers told us to make some noise for the Broncos, and we yelled with our entire mite.  Then stadium announcers told fans to make some noise for the Seahawks.  The response was staggering.  KOA’s Dave Logan later commented that this moment sounded like the comparison between the roar of a 12 year old boy next to that of a fully grown man.

In the first offensive play of the game, the Broncos gave away a safety in the end zone just in front of us.  The team could not hear Manning’s cadence.  The 12^th man has scored.  The Broncos never recovered.  The game plan was flawed, and the team unraveled.  The rest is history.  Our greatest memories of the entire game were the national anthem and the half time show.  Incredible.

I don’t know how so many Seahawk fans managed to get so many tickets and travel so far to support their team, but they did.  The 12^th man is real, and he was able hoist a Lombardi Trophy for the first time in franchise history.  I sincerely doubt the game was fixed, but I do wonder how Seattle fans were able to outnumber Denver fans so soundly at the game.  We were told by some Superbowl veterans that they had not seen a louder, more lopsided fan base at a Superbowl.  It was almost as if the Seahawks were playing at home.  They were energetic, sharp, hard hitting, and aggressive.  The fans brought their winning energy to New York, and the team answered with a bang.  By comparison, only a few Bronco fans showed up, and much of the team stayed home too.

It took 3 hours to get back to our hotel, including 2 punishing and frightening hours of standing in a sea of humanity waiting for the trains.  The transportation system for this game was terribly inadequate and potentially dangerous.  Half of the fans were ordered not to leave the stadium until the lot began to clear.  Seahawk fans treated us with respect and dignity, but didn't spare us their shouts of SEA! HAWKS! all the way back to the city. 

We attempted to fly out early Monday morning, but not before spending an excruciating 3 hours waiting on the tarmac due to heavy snow.  Eight hours later, we arrived at our door.  I’m still trying to shake off the menace of the 12^th man.  He is real, and he has won.  I salute the coaches, players, and fans of Seattle because they've all earned it.  Despite all of our misery, old New York was absolutely worth the trip.

Tony F.

2014  

It's As If....

Terence Jeffrey

In a September 2012 article, CNS News editor TerenceJeffrey reported voter turnout in recent presidential elections has exceeded the number of full time workers in the U.S.  That is to say, non-working voters ”outnumbered” workers.  He then described several other conditions that apparently affect presidential elections, such as the fact that more women are working than ever before, and food stamp benefits are much higher than in 1968.  Toward the end of his article, he attacked the number of employed Americans who work but do not pay taxes due to tax credits.  He concluded his article with the punch line, “The problem is that government has divided America into two camps: those who work and pay, and those who take and take.”

In Jeffrey’s theoretical second camp, those who “take and take”, he implicated non workers, part time workers, workers who qualify for food stamps, women, and workers who qualify for tax credits.  These descriptions encompass every single one of us, including Jeffrey himself.

Although Jeffrey’s factual data cannot be disputed, his implications and conclusions are despicable.  In order to make these destructive conclusions, he had to leave out huge amounts of contrary data: 

He did NOT tell us that in 16 presidential elections since 1952, 13 were decided by non-full time workers, while only 3 elections were controlled by full time workers.  The problem he describes is actually the historic norm.

He did NOT tell us that the opposite is true in EVERY off year election due to low voter turnout.   Full time workers theoretically control the outcome of ALL off-year elections.

He did NOT report that overall employment per capita has been higher in the last 30 years than ever before in U.S. history, with the exception of the war effort during WWII.

He also did NOT report that the recent increase of part time time workers is due to the lack of job openings after 2008, not due to people who are unwilling to work.

He also did NOT report that welfare benefits expanded significantly during the 1970’s and are remaining fairly consistent with the 40 year average relative to GDP.  There are more people on food stamps today, but each recipient is getting a smaller share.

He did NOT report that government expenditures have been shrinking over the course of the Obama presidency, down by 3.3% of GDP since Bush’s 2009 budget. 

And lastly, he did NOT report that Reagan tax reforms required poverty level workers to pay taxes while the wealthy enjoyed major tax cuts.  Reagan cut top tax rates to the lowest levels in 50 years, which continues to cause growing deficits.

It’s as if Jeffrey hen-pecked his data to create an extremely right-biased article.  Funny thing, since CNS News claims to eliminate bias.  Conservatives repeatedly accuse liberals of lying, while creating loads of misinformation like the above.  Jeffrey’s friends in the media have taken his article and run with it: Hannity, Limbaugh, and other AM radio hosts use this misinformation to rant about how we live in a taker’s welfare state, how the takers control elections, and how we had better prepare for the worst by stocking up on guns and ammo.  It’s as if conservatives are hoping for a war.  If there is “class warfare” in this country, it's as if it is being propagated by conservatives.

The bottom line is this:  The percentage of “providers” has risen in the last few decades, reaching its highest level in 1998 and coming down only a few percentage points in recent years due to economic change and job competition.  The percentage of “takers” is rising only among the elderly.  Overall spending on “entitlements” is up in recent years due to the increasing population of retired citizens, but Jeffrey doesn't mention this.  He tries to attribute the problem to American laziness, as if that were true.  

The wealthiest Americans are paying lower tax percentages than in the years from 1932 to 1986, yet they are complaining that poverty level wage earners are not paying enough.  It's as if the wealthy are the most "entitled".  To correct Jeffrey’s closing line, Conservatives have divided America into two camps: those who work and pay, and those who allegedly take and take.  As if the latter actually existed.

Tony F.   2013

A Physics Lesson about Life

Darkness cannot be created.  Darkness only describes the absence of light.  Without light, darkness prevails.  On the other hand, extreme light will slice through everything in its path.  Only the right amount of light can pierce the darkness and illuminate you.

Cold cannot be created.   Cold only describes the absence of heat.  Without heat, cold prevails.  Absolute zero is the total absence of heat.  On the other hand, extreme heat will burn and destroy.  Only the right amount of heat can melt through the cold and warm you.

Hunger cannot be created.  Hunger only describes the absence of nutrition.  Without nutrition, hunger prevails.  A total lack of nutrition creates starvation.  On the other hand, extreme nutrition creates obesity.  Only the right amount of nutrition can sustain you.

Apathy cannot be created.  Apathy only describes the absence of care.  Without care, apathy prevails.  On the other hand, extreme care causes jealousy, possessiveness, and smothering.  In the 1990 film “Misery”, Kathy Bates’ character cared about the novelist so intensely; she was willing to injure him to keep him in her care.  Only the right amount of care can comfort you. 

Anarchy cannot be created.  Anarchy describes the absence of governance.  Without governance, anarchy prevails.  With anarchy, justice is destroyed, except for the strongest and most equipped.  All others become their victims.  On the other hand, extreme governance creates tyranny and loss of freedom.  In this way, freedom and justice are opposing values.  Only the right amount of governance can provide both freedom and justice. 

Peace is misunderstood.  Peace cannot be created.  Peace only describes the absence of chaos.  Without chaos, peace prevails.  On the other hand, the desolation of outer space is extremely peaceful and we cannot survive there.  Solitary confinement is terribly peaceful and it is a hellish form of isolation.  Relative peace is good, but only when escaping chaos, and having the freedom to return to chaos.  Only the right amount of peace can calm you.  The right amount of chaos can excite and stimulate you. 

Truth is misunderstood.  Truth cannot be created.  Truth describes the absence of falsehood.  Without falsehood, truth prevails.  Truth is not subject to interpretation or modification, it simply exists.  On the other hand, absolute truth is not kind.  If someone you love is not looking their best, it is not a good idea to tell them the whole truth.  Unchecked truth is damaging.  In this way, some lies are supportive.  We often need to hear a well fashioned and well-intended lie from someone we love.  We trust a person who lies when we need it, and tells the truth when we can learn from it.  Jesus told many cryptic parables because he knew the bold truth was too harsh to handle.  It takes a very mature person to handle the naked truth.  We all wear clothing because we really don't want to know the naked truth about each other.  Only the right amount of truth can be productive.

The planet Earth is not too cold or too hot.  If it were, all life would perish.  Our planet travels at the perfect speed around the sun to keep it in equilibrium with the gravitational pull between masses.  All of life exists in this perfect balance - the fine point of equilibrium between nothing and everything, between scarcity and excess.  When we think of this fact in the universal sense, all of life exists at a tiny point at the center of vast extremes.  Balance creates life.  Extremism destroys.  Balance takes effort, strength, knowledge, understanding, and temperament.  Extremism is relatively effortless because it thrives on ignorance, weakness, and anger.

Find that very small place.  Find your balance.  Find goodness.

“Enter through the narrow gate.  For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life; and only a few find it. - Matthew 7:13”

Tony F.  2013

Shaken Up About "Fracking"

In a 1970 report, the USGS identified an apparent correlation between Colorado earthquakes and the deep injection of wastewater 12,000 feet deep into the earth’s crust at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, beginning in 1962.  According to the report, very few seismic events were reported in Colorado in the 100 years prior to 1962, but over 1,500 tremors, light earthquakes, and significant earthquakes occurred in the decade following the deep wastewater injection.  Most of these were not strong enough to be noticed by the public, but dozens of events caused varying degrees of damage and were relayed in the news.  There are numerous correlations of this kind throughout the U.S. over the last 50 years, most notably in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Ohio, Texas, and Colorado, evidently related to deep wastewater injection.

Although the coincidence of earthquakes associated with deep wastewater injection appears inarguable, there is a misnomer when the press relates deep injection to “fracking”.  The two are not the same.  Deep wastewater injection is usually done at a depth of more than 10,000 ft., and it involves the permanent injection of fluids where they are able to cause an increase in seismic activity.  Conversely, hydraulic fracturing typically occurs at the depth of 3,000 to 6,000 ft., and involves the temporary injection of fluids.  A majority of these fluids are subsequently removed, leaving sand in the cracks.  According to most theories, this has the effect of reducing and absorbing seismic energy rather than causing it to radiate.

These key differences are rarely made clear by the media.  Although a measurable amount of wastewater from the energy sector is disposed through deep wastewater injection, it is not done during the “fracking” process.  Strangely, many of the news stories involving seismic risk tend to blur the line between "fracking" and injection, despite the fact that all reports about seismic risk are tied only to deep wastewater injection.  The two activities are easily confused, and the media is not making an effort to alleviate confusion as they jump on the bandwagon to hype up negative news about gas exploration.

One significant purpose for deep wastewater injection is the sequestration of carbon in the “clean burning” coal process.  Carbon is rinsed from coal and trapped in large quantities of water.  The water is then injected into deep wells to prevent CO2 from entering the atmosphere.  This process, which ultimately increases seismic activity, is just another black mark against the coal industry.  Without the “clean burning” process, and deep wastewater injection, coal is 7 times more carbon emitting than natural gas.  As major power companies plan for the inevitable requirement to reduce carbon in the power generation process, most are converting coal plants to natural gas.  The fuel source is less expensive, and the process is far less involved than the "clean burning" of coal.

I’ve written several posts in support of hydraulic fracturing and retrieval of methane.  One flaw in the gas network is the frequency of gas leaks, which release powerful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  The industry and lawmakers are working together to tighten regulations on leakage for this reason.  Although the process is not perfect, it is still far cleaner than coal and other fossil fuels.  The capturing of methane is identified by the EPA as our best short term solution to reducing greenhouse gases.  As more power plants and vehicle fleets continue convert to natural gas, our methods of capture and distribution also improve to create a cleaner natural gas network.  In my recent post, “No Alternative”, I made the case that alternative energy is also deeply flawed, so we must embrace the lesser of evils in our quest to reduce greenhouse gases.

That said, the potential for increased seismic activity due to deep wastewater injection may be an issue worth getting shaken up about.  So, please inform your friends and write your politicians about your opposition to deep wastewater injection, but be careful not to confuse it with hydraulic fracturing.  They are not the same.

Tony F.  2013

The Richest Men in America

During the turn of the century, 1870-1930, the wealthiest and most resourceful men in American history made their mark.  This was the time of Great Gatsby.  It was the pinnacle of the industrial revolution when great inventions were made and the world was changed forever.  The wealthiest men in American history were worth, in today’s dollars, anywhere from $34 billion to $340 billion each.  The last member of this elite group was Henry Ford, owner of the Ford Motor Company, who died in 1944 with an estimated net worth of about $160 billion in today’s dollars.

After Ford’s death, no American had a net worth greater than $8 billion in today’s dollars – less than one twentieth of the wealth of Henry Ford.  This trend continued until 1987 when Sam Walton broke into this elite class with an estimated adjusted net worth of $45 billion.  Then a remarkable set of events occurred.  In the same manner as the industrial revolution, the top earners in America experienced runaway wealth once again.  In the last 25 years, the accumulated total wealth in the Forbes 400 has now reached proportions not seen since the Jazz Age.  Since 1982, the total net worth of the Forbes 400 has risen by 1200 percent.  Average household income has risen by 263 percent over the same period.  Based on this trend, the turn of the century moguls who once owned the title of top 30 wealthiest Americans of all time, will be completely replaced by men who are growing richer today.

During the turn of the 20^th century, America was tainted by extreme separation of the rich from the poor.  The working class struggled to have their basic needs met.  The wealthy leveraged cheap labor for extreme personal gain.   In the period after WW2, however, America’s middle class gained strength through unionization, taxation, and social programs, thus narrowing the gap between rich and poor to a more sustainable level.  By nearly every historical account, including the reminiscence of our own parents, this period from 1944 to 1987 was the greatest period in American history.  From this observation, it appears the country is not doing as well today as we could be.  The rising wealth of the rich and a resulting weakening of the middle and lower classes is likely to be adding a strain to our economy.

Mark Zuckerberg

Not surprisingly, today’s billionaires do not look like the super-rich of yesteryear.   The richest men in American history are not wearing top hats, suits, and fur coats.  Today’s billionaire is much more humble.  Sam Walton took great pride in driving his old Chevy pickup each day.  Bill Gates, who is worth over 70 billion today, is seldom seen in more than a simple button up shirt.  Warren Buffett often argues that he should be taxed more heavily.  Mark Zuckerberg, worth about $20 billion, wears a hoodie at all times.  It’s difficult to loath this kind of humbleness, but it doesn’t change the fact that these men are growing wealth at a pace only seen once before in history.  If any of these men flaunted their wealth as Gatsby did, we most certainly would have a different attitude.

Let’s not forget, however, that the turn of the 20^th century was a historic period in terms of shaping our entire world.  The development of railroads, steel, oil, automobiles, and electricity helped create the modern age of the next 100 years.  The men who dedicated their lives to these changes became the richest men in America.  It seems that we are now in the midst of another revolutionary age which is far less visible.  Not surprisingly, a large majority of the billionaires on the Forbes 400 today are involved in computer technology.  We have yet to fully realize how computers are affecting our future, but we can be certain the changes are larger and more permanent than we realize.  With the use of computers and technology, corporations are providing more products with less labor, and making record profits.  Conversely, the wages of the average worker remain stagnant, except for a few who are leveraging technology in their favor.  Technological advances are not creating more jobs, instead they are reducing the labor needed to produce the same results.  In his book “Average is Over”, Tyler Cowen makes a very convincing argument that anyone who is not savvy with computers and technology will be underemployed and poor in the near future. 

I wrote about this historic shift in my post “Digital Economy”, January 2013.  The equation is simple; if you are working with a computer, you stand a chance of making a living.  If you are building robots, you stand a chance of living well.  If you are making computers or robots work even better, you may grow very wealthy.  But, if you describe yourself as being hands-on, in the trenches, and not comfortable with technology; you may need to be very concerned about how your future is being shaped by richest men in America.

Tony F.   2013

No Alternative

In the most recent election, three Colorado communities elected for moratoriums against hydraulic fracturing within their city limits.  On one hand, it seems fair to limit gas exploration in the immediate vicinity of thousands of residents.  In another regard, energy that is found nearest the consumer is the most efficient and least invasive.  If you've seen my post of October 5^th, and also in August of 2011, you would know that I disagree with limitations in natural gas exploration.  Natural gas is relatively clean burning, abundant, and renewable.  So, in light of this recent vote, I want everyone to ponder a few big questions:

   

Imagine a world in the future where we all suddenly agree that global warming is a real and present danger - a world where we all decide to rise up and make a sweeping change.   A world where we all decide to stop carbon emissions worldwide, and actively engage in carbon prevention and sequestration.  We need to ask ourselves a very practical question:  Without burning carbon fuels, where will we get all of our energy? 

Would we greatly increase the use of wind power?  Not likely.  Wind power endangers rare birds as they are struck down by the fast moving turbines.  It impairs our views of open space and casts artificial shade on otherwise sunny spaces.  Wind energy takes a great deal of energy to build, transport, and maintain.  The generators require large quantities of rare earth metals.  Engineers have not yet solved the problems of lateral stress on the generators, which causes them to break down often.  Most importantly, we cannot store the inconsistent energy as it is produced.

Would we support the use of solar power?  Not likely.  It involves the use of highly toxic heavy metals and extreme amounts of energy to produce.  Solar energy is expensive to develop, not very efficient, and encapsulates years of electrical energy to manufacture.  Due to its experimental nature, solar energy has suffered some of the largest failures in recent years, despite massive Federal funding.  Solyndra and Abound together cost us around 400 Million in Federal losses.  

Would we support the use of hydro energy?  Not likely.  It requires tremendous amounts of resources and emissions to construct a dam.  Reservoirs flood highly valuable riverside habitat, interrupts the migration of fish and wildlife, heats surface water, increases evaporation, and disrupts river flows.  Most importantly, it steals water resources from other communities and entire states down stream.    

Electric cars have invisible exhaust.

Electric cars?  Not an answer at all.  Proponents of electric cars ignore the source of the electricity, which comes from coal burning and natural gas burning power plants.  Unless a new carbon free energy source is created, electric cars are simply a carbon emitter in disguise.

How about nuclear power?  No way.  It is extremely expensive to build, dangerous to operate, impossible to clean up, and potentially catastrophic to human life.

Ok, should we promote bio-fuels?  Not a good idea.  They increase our water needs and fertilizer use.  They may increase food costs, and are still burned, resulting in carbon emissions.  Bio fuels are also less efficient in terms of fuel mileage.  Increased cultivation increases dust pollution, air pollution, and water contamination. 

Then how about hydrogen fuel?  With a little research, we discover that the most efficient way to generate hydrogen is with the use of fossil fuels, methane, and high volumes of electrical energy.  Not much to gain there.  Hydrogen is little more than converted and stored carbon energy.

In fairness, I made a cynical attempt to view every energy source in it's most negative light, and I don't agree with every sentiment above.  I am repeating information relayed mostly by liberal sources.  The same liberals who disagree with "fracking" also disagree with alternatives for the above reasons.  This illustrates the fact that there is no perfect solution to our energy future.  As we transition away from carbon energy, the best we can do is choose the lesser of the evils.  I argue that natural gas is the lesser of evils.  It is shutting down the coal market, and that is a step in the right direction.

If we continue to make local fuel exploration difficult and expensive, we are ultimately forcing another flawed alternative.  The best answer to alternative power is every answer.  Hydrogen fuel is carbon free when it is generated and stored from wind energy.  Electric vehicles are carbon free when they are charged with solar energy.  Solar panels are carbon free if they are built from hydro energy.  Hydro dams are carbon free if they are built with hydrogen powered equipment.  Carbon free is a process, not just a plug in car.  The alternative energy future must be a network, all flaws accepted.  Until we realize that, we really have no alternative.

Tony F.
2013