When faced with a challenge as big as worldwide pollution and climate change, there are a number of possible responses. For simplicity's sake, I'll focus on three:

1) You can tackle it head on, assigning lots of resources to the problem, to understand it, and remedy it. This is the ambitious, creative, and difficult option. Think of Sweden's pledge to be fossil fuel free by 2020.

2) You can make a less full-hearted attempt, just to make yourself feel good- a good example of this, in my opinion, is the whole idea of carbon credits. Even the Kyoto Protocol is unambitious in a number of ways, considering the actual limits of existing and projected future technologies.

3) You can do nothing, but that really means just keep things how they are, which is actually quite actively less than nothing.

Unfortunately, in this country, when it comes to unselfish, gargantuan causes to champion, the most popular option for the organizations with the most resources at their disposal (e.g. government, large corporations, even large non-profit organizations) is #3. They can sometimes be pushed against their will into #2, but you will rarely, if ever, see option #1 as the choice of these powerful bodies.

What makes this so criminal is that large corporations and other organizations will often-times marshall ridiculous amounts of resources to fight for smaller issues, or ones which they can selfishly twist to their will. I know it's possible to do the same thing with the big, unselfish issues. Think of the New Deal, a big inspiration for me of what's possible.

Here's an example of how this all plays out, that never ceases to amaze me: Is it possible for cars to get better than 75 MPG now without sacrificing comfort? Yes- I've ridden in a plug-in hybrid that got 80 MPG on biodiesel! Has the automotive industry convinced government that it is not possible? Yes, with help from government's existing deep well of apathy. Would tripling our passenger car fuel economy do a lot to combat pollution and climate change? Absolutely!

So, you get the gist. Kind of a d'uh type of thing. Well, here's three more examples that are stuck in my craw as of late:

- All of this focus on biofuels as the enemy right now. It's asinine. The enemy is pollution and climate change, and properly manufactured and utilized biofuels are a key component to an action plan. But here's the thing: why the f*ck aren't people going nuts about the problems with using fossil fuels? It's like everyone has skipped over the initial, biggest problem, to focus on all the nitty gritty devils in the details of the solution. The reasons to use sustainable biofuels are many, and for the life of me, I cannot think of more than one reason to use fossil fuel (it used to be "the only thing around"). So, priorities, people!

- Calling recycled fryer oil biodiesel "2nd Generation" is particularly stupid and disingenuous, considering that the Fat of the Land people, not to mention Josh Tickell and company (and many, many homebrewers) were honing that craft over a decade ago. Everybody saying that we need to find 2nd generation technologies and feedstocks is simply trying to deflect criticism from the fact that they should have focused on this stuff in the first place, instead of low-yield food crops. Yes, we are dealing with a bunch of morons, and they have controlled the public debate so far, and continue to influence policy.

- John McCain is evil, and here's why: he is proposing that the federal fuel tax be eliminated, to battle high fuel prices. This is the biggest example of a lose-lose, do less than nothing approach that I have ever seen. Starve the government of a HUGE funding source, while at the same time not lowering pricing at all (because there is absolutely NO WAY that oil companies don't just raise their margin thanks to this regulatory windfall- they already know "what the market will bear"). The only people this helps is the oil execs and their companies' shareholders. AND, IT ENCOURAGES MORE CONSUMPTION! Somebody follow the money on McCain.