Let's have a town hall!  Let the people's voice be heard.

Please push this issue to the forefront before it's too late.  Our future depends on it!

This is a great idea; but it is not enough. We need to have an additional summit in Washington DC where we can put forward the best ideas to Congress and the Administration that the people have come up with. For example, the New Energy Congress is planning to develop a plan to meet Gore's Challenge to produce all of our electricity with renewables within 10 years. The NEC should be funded to do this by the government. The NEC already has a list of 100 new energy technologies that is incredible. See: www.newenergycongress.org. 
Change.org could gather together the best proposals on Renewable Energy and then those that get the most interest could be presented at the Summit meeting in Washington DC around the time the town hall meetings are held. 

We need more public control over the utility companies.  They usually have total power, giving the consumer little if any real choice.  Duke Energy is starting a new giant coal plant in Indiana that will increase rates!  The Republican governor and pals get money from them to support it.  But where is the research for the consumer, for the long term best choices?
Did they really look at conservation, alternative's, or are these not in the companies interest?  We have to write and call our politicians to demand that they MAKE these companies be efficent, and green!  Otherwise they will do whatever that seems to make their managers more bonus money, and to heck with what's best for their area or the US !

We need to start rationing electricity.  Here's my idea:  You can use as much as you want, no problem, and at the going rate.  Each household is allotted a certain amount based losely on sq. feet, and more importantly, on household members.  BUT: After so many KW, you'll be charged a crazy amount.  Insanely high.  I think we would all be surprised at how quickly we adapt to this.

Also, if you use less than your "quota", you could sell it to your neighbors at alower price than the electric company would.

Since about 65% of our oil supply is used for transport, we must change our transport fuel to electricity and develop lots of electric vehicles and grid connected vehicles (GCV's) such as electric rail, electric bus, etc. powered to the extent possible by renewable energy.   See Richard Gilbert and Anthony Pearl's book "Transport Revolutions: Moving People and Freight Without Oil" http://transportrevolutions.info/ for a good discussion on this topic.  

The development of distributed renewable energy could be signficiantly encouraged by adopting Feed-In Tariff programs http://www.newrules.org/de/feed-in-tariffs.pdf which would unleash the entrepreneural spirit of the American people creating lots of local jobs.   

Base load utility scale renewable energy projects could be developed using High Temperature Concentrated Solar Thermal Power (CSP) http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3791 in the southwestern US desert areas and transmitting it using high capacity, low loss HVDC transmission lines to other areas of the country.    For example, an approximately 100 sq. mi. area of these plants could potentially  provide 100% of current US electricity supply!    As a former electric power engineer, this is about as close to a silver bullet energy solution as I have seen.   

It almost goes without saying that our power grid also needs to  transition to "smart grid" techology which allows for significant demand side management (aka energy conservation) capabilities. 

We will not be slaves to oil gas and energy suppliers again put them in their place plastic and asphalt Say Never again to High oil prices and energy dependence . 90% Oil, Coal, & Gas free Electricity and heat in every state in 2 yearsCold Geothermal see how it works hereSource http://www.chenahotsprings.com/index.php?id=90 Closed loop geothermal will work with temperature as low as 100 degrees Fahrenheit or 37.7777778 degree Celsius. This means every state can use it for at least 4 thousand years. See the geothermal map here http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geomap.html It is cheep energy. How do we pay for it. Start every state will receive grants to cover the full cost of 50 percent of its energy needs worth of geothermal plants. The state will own the plants and can sell the energy to the electricity to electric companies. The profits from the plants will be used to build the remaining 40 % of the plants. The federal government will provide long term loans with no zero interest rates for the remaining 40% of the plants. The states then will set up a Permanent fund, from 20 percent of the profit’s the 10 % will go to health care 10 % to secondary education the remainder to go to the state to help provide government services and off set taxes. This will provide Jobs, it will end our dependence on foreign oil. It will provide each state with an additional source of income, It will provide funding for healthcare and education, It will make the home heating and electric bills cheaper leaving more money in your pocket, and its good for the environment. How cold Geo worksBecause the geothermal water at Chena Hot Springs never reaches the boiling point of water we cannot use a traditional steam driven turbine. Instead a secondary (hence, "binary") fluid, R-134a, which has a lower boiling point than water passes through a heat exchanger with 165°F water from our geothermal wells. Heat from the geothermal water causes the R-134a to flash to vapor which then drives the turbine. Because this is a closed loop system virtually nothing is emitted to the atmosphere. Moderate temperature is by far the most common geothermal resource and most geothermal power plants in the future will be binary cycle plants. Here are the steps in the cycle:STEP 1: Hot water enters the evaporator at 165ºF (480gpm). After the hot water runs through the evaporator, it is returned to the geothermal reservoir via our injection pump and injection well system. Some of the water is also used to heat buildings on site before it is reinjected. STEP 2: The evaporator shell is filled with R-134a, a common refrigerant found in many air conditioning systems. The 165ºF water entering the evaporator is not hot enough to boil water, but it is hot enough to boil the R-134a refrigerant. The evaporator is a giant heat exchanger, with the hot water never actually coming in contact with the refrigerant, but transferring heat energy to it. The R134a begins to boil and vaporize. STEP 3: On initial system startup, the vapor bypasses the turbine and returns directly to the condenser via a bypass valve. Once there is adequate boiling/evaporation of the refrigerant, the bypass valve closes and the vapor is routed to the turbine. STEP 4: The vapor is expanded supersonically through the turbine nozzle, causing the turbine blades to turn at 13,500rpm. The turbine is connected to a generator, which it spins at 3600rpm, producing electricity. STEP 5: Cooling Water enters from our cooling water well which is located 3000ft distant and 33ft higher elevation than the power plant. Cold water (40ºF-45ºF) is siphoned out of this well and supplied to the power plant condenser at a rate of 1500gpm. STEP 6: The cooling water entering the condenser and recondenses the vapor refrigerant back into a liquid. As in the evaporator, the condenser only allows heat transfer to occur between the refrigerant (in the shell) and the cold water (in the tubes within the condenser). The two liquids never actually come in contact. STEP 7: The pump pushes the liquid refrigerant back over to the evaporator, so the cycle can start again. By doing so, it also generates the pressure which drives the entire cycle.Source http://www.chenahotsprings.com/index.php?id=90

There is a town hall process designed, facilitator network in place across the nation.  There are several foundations that underwrite different events.
www.americaspeaks.org 

I have facilitated several of these dialogues and the engagement of the participants, the outcomes of the thoughts, action plans and the hope it gives our citizens that they can make a change is immeasurable.

This process should become a tool used by Obama and his team.

I have to admit that I'm a complete dummy when it comes to this subject, but I refuse to stay a dummy. There are a lot of others that are in the same boat as me, but they refuse to change.

OUR CURRENT WAY OF MAKING ENERGY FROM OIL AND COAL ARE RAVAGING OUR ONLY MOTHER EARTH.  WE MUST STOP THIS NOW AND CHANGE TO SOLAR, WIND AND ANY OTHER BENIGN MEANS OF MAKING ENERGY.  WE HAVE THE MEANS AND THE BETTER WAYS ALREADY.  WE JUST NEED ONE THING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, THE WILL.  YES WE CAN.

 The most compelling issue is a lack of knowledge of basic social needs and obligations. I believe that addressing education through
public programs will enlighten many.
 I noted a research finding done with highschool seniors; of this group less then 50% knew that the first amendment to our constitution guarentes free speech, and further, they did not think this very importent!!!

One of the most effective things we can do to revolutionize our energy usage is accelerate the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids. But getting those gears in motion can be a difficult, time-consuming task. We have to subsidize these vehicles until the economy of scale can kick in and bring down their cost. But, we also need to create the infrastructure that will make the technology CONVENIENT to use. That means having EV charging stations ubiquitously installed in useful locations: public parking lots and garages, condominium garages, etc. Building codes need to be revised so that new high rises will be wired with metered charging outlets in the parking stalls of condominiums and office buildings. Wiring should also enable the possibility to install solar panels on the roofs of buildings. Legislative action is required to make all these things a reality and create the public-private partnerships that will make the needed infrastructure a reality.

This is a great idea in principle. There are numerous things that individuals can do to most efficiently use electricity and gas, and making sure people know about them is a great idea. For large scale change, new technologies will be needed, and we as a society need to decide what is feasible and worth the investment - such as nuclear reactors, setting up an electic grid for recharging cars, using pizeoelectric technology and other forms of energy recycling like using radio waves to charge cellular devices, etc - and what is not.

I think town hall meetings could go a long ways to build advocacy and buy in from a larger group of people. There have been a number of national teach-ins (Focus the Nation in 08 and soon in 09) that did just this but through college campuses, churches, and non-profits. I think there are a lot of people out there who have heard the message of 'this is very important and we have a limited window to act in' and are ready to do something but lack the network and leadership to know where to begin. I think town hall meetings that are focused on a particular city or county would go a long ways to empower local communities to take action themselves and start to look at how they shape local policy. Congress does need to be pushed to step up their actions, but we can start to lead the discussion on a local level and give case examples that will be used as support. Recently, several of my peers lead their own town hall meeting in central California to discuss with residence what their concerns about energy are and how do they see this affecting their community. http://www.ksby.com/global/story.asp?S=9456072

Before we start talking solutions Washington should proceed to tell the People what it knows about UFOs and The Disclosure Project should be allowed to testify as to what they know. Then we can hold the town hall meetings where we have all the cards on the table.

I have a device (idea in my head) that could be attached to any building to use wind energy but have been unable to progress due to lack of funding, I do not want to talk about it but there lies the problem. Most funding goes to Institutions or Organisation and then the Institutions or Organisation want the inventor to give them his idea where he is quietly push to the side.

The new American Patent laws are allowing further eroding of an individual's rights to be the true inventor of the idea by allowing big companies to come forward and say that they were working on such a project, look at Apple v. Burst.com. What we the People need here is for our new President is to re-establish the inventors rights otherwise these town-meetings will not produce a fully open discussion and you will have a lot of companies sending their eves-droppers in so that they will be saying that they are already working on such an invention, then they come out with a lesser robust model (for economic reasons). We need things to be built to last so that  we again save our resources and energies.

A number of excellent ideas are presented on this website.  We now need to educate and inspire our citizens to take actions to bring these about. In my own case, as a retired educator, I plan to start with our college students by serving as a local organizer for the National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions on Feb. 5, 2009.  We need to inspire pore to participate in this and to urge expansion of such efforts to other sectors of our society.  There is not sufficient public concern or understanding of the problem.

When might this nationwide town hall day be?

I support the idea of town meetings. People could learn a lot just by attending. Also, everyone can share their information.

The proposal for the town hall meeting is splendid.

We very much need public education on climate change.  A certain senator introduced a bill into the US Senate in May of 2007 -- The ClimateChange Education Act. S. 1389.  Who was this with such foresight?  It was Illinois Senator Obama.

The town hall meeting is right in this spirit.  The April 18th date is a fine choice, I feel.

There's also good experience with town hall meeting on climate change.  For instance, the American Association for the Advancement of Science held such an event in San Franscisco in 2007:

http://www.globalwarmingcalifornia.net/conferences_aaas_07_01/index.html

Let's not pass up on this wonderful proposal.

 

Dear President Elect Obama, As a professor, I have some hesitancy in offering advice to an expert politician like you.  I had been a supporter of Al Gore as a candidate, but I appreciate his belief that he might be more effective in advocating his beliefs by serving in a non-governmental role.  I am prepared to transfer my hope to you with the confidence that you will be an advocate of many of the policies that were so meaningful to him. In addition to the Iraq war, an issue on which I have no expertise, I believe the country faces two major issues that deserve priorities: 1.   Energy, the climate, and global warming  2.   The economy These issues are related, since if energy becomes scarce and expensive and if the climate deteriorates, the economy is certain to suffer.  In considering the implications, it is necessary to consider the price of inaction  Such will cause damage, which, in the long run, will cost the country much more to rectify, than will taking preventive steps now.  We must give up the “instant gratification” syndrome which has had such an important influence on our actions. Many have contended, and I agree, that a change in lifestyle is necessary to deal with these problems. Advances in technology have offered possibilities that have not been met with changes in our social and governmental structure. Let me offer a few examples: 1.   As an octogenarian, I remember the days when comfortable living depended upon being able to send our clothes to the laundry, having the iceman deliver ice to our icebox, having the milkman leave glass bottles of milk at our door, having a furnace man bank our coal furnace in the evening and start it up in the morning, having a gardener who would mow our grass with a hand lawn mower,  a local boy who might shovel our snow,  a secretary to whom we would dictate letters, and mail would get delivered twice a day at low cost  2.   Today, life is at least as comfortable, largely due to technological progress.  We do our own wash with an automatic washing machine and dryer. We have an electric refrigerator not requiring delivery of ice, we can buy homogenized milk in large plastic jugs at the supermarket, we have an automatic oil, gas, or elctric furnace not requiring much attention, an air conditioner to cool our homes in the summer, and a power lawn mower and snow plow that many of us use ourselves. Many of us no longer use secretaries, but we type our own letters on our word processor. The internet with e-mail has decreased the need to use conventional mail. 3.   However, all is not rosy.  We are faced with some problems: a.   Many of these conveniences require electricity or other power which will become more scarce and expensive. Their cost and availability seems to grow at a greater rate than our incomes, so many may be faced with doing without some of these conveniences.  b.   Much of the above depends upon cheap and convenient transportation. Auto fuel has become and will be more expensive. Roads are more congested resulting in more time being wasted in traffic. Rail service is inadequate to meet growing demands. Air travel has gotten more expensive and unpleasant, such that I have decided not to take some trips that I would otherwise. c.    While supermarkets and malls have led to lower prices, they usually require transportation to get to, have duplicates of standard merchandise, and fewer knowledgeable employees to help customers. d.   The internet has gotten less efficient and has become cluttered with “junk mail” and spam.  e.   Our communication and power distribution system has become highly centralized and vulnerable to failure resulting from equipment problems, natural events, and terrorist activities. f.     Equipment repair has become ever-more difficult with it becoming more complex and fewer trained people to deal with it.  Thus, it is often cheaper to throw out equipment that could otherwise be repaired and replace it with new. g.   Technical advances have eliminated jobs for many unskilled workers, and the educational system has not adequately met the task of training these people to deal with more sophisticated tasks.

4.   Many of the above problems arise because of:  a.   Inadequate infrastructure and means for dealing with it. b.   Excessive centralization of facilities and services c.    Lack of willingness to invest now so as to achieve future savings. d.   The rising cost of education associated with the decrease in available public funding, the decrease in private contributions associated with the deteriorating economy, and the decrease in value of endowments arising from the lower income from investment of endowment funds.   5.   There have been technical advances in recent years that permit an approach to these problems that has not been stressed by the current administration.  I am pleased, for example, by your appointment of Seven Chu, whom I know and respect, to be involved with the energy problem.  It is my hope that you will consult with him on decisions related to such matters and that you will consider his advice more seriously than has been done with such advice in the past.

These advances include:  a.   Computers and the internet b.   New materials c.    New electronics, photovoltaics, and LEDs d.   New designs of vehicles, trains, and planes e.   New techniques and designs for building f.     New ways to recycle 6.   To address these problems, some suggestions are: a.   As you have already indicated, make a strong effort to improve the infrastructure.  I was interested to hear this morning on the CBS TV program, “Sunday morning”, reference to FDR’s approach of establishing the WPA which provided needed employment for many and also carried out projects on roads, bridges, parks, etc. that added to the quality of life of the public during following administrations Areas where such efforts are currently needed are: i.  Public transportation ii. Roads and bridges iii,The power grid iv.The internet b. Decentralization is needed.  We have been                 subjected to centalized souces of electricity and         water and have become more dependent upon           shopping malls and “big box” stores.  New                 technology allows these services to be provided         more locally  b.   Needs for transportation can be reduced through better use of the internet and electronic means of communication.  This might involve:

i. Use of teleconverencing ii. Presentation of videocourses iii.Use of “on line” banking and shopping  c.    The need for US mail for personal correspondence has decreased and might be abandoned.  Much of the current use is by advertisers and solicitors, many of whom pay reduced rates which are probably not profitable. It might be considered whether delivery of bulky items is done better by the government or a private organization. d.   Government subsidies and taxes should be decided upon for other than political purposes.  In particular: i. Subsidies for alcohol from corn are obviously used  to      win votes from corn producing states. These are out of      line with possible subsidies for other items such as          cellulosic biomass used for alcohol production.ii.Import taxes on items like ethanol from Brazil                  are obviously protectionistic and imposed for political        reasonsiii.Fossil fuel users are getting a “free ride” in that they   are not paying for the environmental damage caused by    their production and use of their fuel sources. This gives    them an unfair advantage over producers of alternative    energy.iv.Government support for public transportation is too low    as compared with that for roads, etc. used by motor        vehicles.  This has resulted in a decline in the quality of    public transportation.v.Taxes on gasoline have been too low in comparison with    most other “first world” countries. This has resulted in      excessive use of motor vejicles leading to the need for      oil import and consequent high prices.  The result is          that the money is going to the supplying nations rather      than to the U.S. which could be using the money to          develop alternative fuels and for public transportation.vi. Additional support is needed for start-ups of                  new industries and alternative fuel producers employng    new technologies to enable them to bring production to    a level where it becomes competitive.vii.American industry suffers from competition     from countries where labor costs are lower.  This             partially results from the need for US companies             offering medical and retirement benefits whereas these     are provided by the government in some of the               countries. Also, needs for labor in the US might be           reduced by better employment of robotics.vii.Automobile manufacturers have been permitted to    sell cars having lower fuel efficiency than in many           other countries.  This is effectively a subsidy which           may be undeserved.  A stricter efficiency requirement       might be in order.  This could result in increased car         costs but the resulting probable reduction in fuel prices     may compensate.viii.Similarly, more strict standards for housing                   and appliances could result in energy savings.ix.Much lighting is still done by inefficient   incandescent bulbs.  Their replacement by compact          fluorescents, and eventually LEDs should be required. My list is probably incomplete and several of the suggestions will probably be unpopular with some politicians and industrial leaders. However, I believe they will be of public benefit, and my hope is that you will have the courage and ability to institute some of them.  I am hopeful that your administration may really bring about the promised changes and bring America back to being a prosperous nation and deserving of the respect of other nations.  I shall be happy not to have to excuse its behavior when I travel abroad. Sincerely, Richard S. (Dick) Stein Goessmann Professor of chermistry, Emeritus University of Massachusetts, Amherst
.  

We should keep nuclear power included in the energy debate.  It has worked for France, there are no carbon emissions, and can be a great potential energy source for heating/cooling buildings and electric-battery powered transportation in cars, trucks, buses, and trains.  I love the creativity to utilize more wind and solar power, and coupled with a "smart grid" infrastructure could help us reduce wasted energy in transmission to our homes.  Nuclear could only enhance that as the baseline energy like France's infrastructure.  If the same argument to keep nuclear off the table is that it is dangerous and has the challenge of storing the radioactive waste, then a criticism of the renewables is the cost and impracticality of the energy storage.  The World Nuclear Association states that "Sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed. In practical terms they are therefore limited to some 10–20% of the capacity of an electricity grid, and cannot directly be applied as economic substitutes for coal or nuclear power, however important they may become in particular areas with favourable conditions."  additionally, the battery capability to store the renewable energy is not on the horizon, either.  Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities (see NIH).  Separately, Vulcan Ventures has patents for nuclear energy plants the size of refrigerators that can support a community of 200,000 people for 30 years - no maintenance, self-contained (just add the existing security for a energy site).  While there is a challenge to storing waste and handling the overheated water, that is mainly a political problem as research by engineers has been on the table for years.  And for current subsidy costs, a May 12, 2008 editorial in the Wall St. Journal stated, "For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and 'clean coal' $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59." But, as an editorial, this is purely a matter of opinion - I can't vouch for the numbers from the EIA.
While I think our ultimate goal is to find a self-sufficient energy source, nothing will cover America 100% so we need to target as many energy sources as possible until we invent the flux-capacitor.

Mr. President , Now is the time for our nation to invest in alternative energies to power this nation. 
I know you have lots on your plate sndf you have been given a nation decimated by greed, and years of GOP neglect and greed, but I know you will do the right thing for our future.
Know you have our support, criticism and backing when you need it.
Everette RicePortland, ORocba@qwest.net

End the wars.  Hold these town halls, forums, and summits.  Tell Americans to take individual action now, and we'll come up with some team plans while we're at it.  This is just our one planet.  This is our one life (that we can prove) to help life, or to hurt it.

Enable individual action. see <a href="http://Unpollute.ning.com">Unpollute.ning.com</a>

We need action, not more discussion.  We know how to begin addressing these issues.

Vote for the Architecture 2030 Challenge...that's the most profitable and fastest way to create measurable and meaningful benefits.

There's no more time for talk.

I think a Town Meeting is an excellent event to hold as long as there is a significant, active and collaborative effort to include fully those who Americans who are minority and/or low-income  -- i.e. those who are disadvantaged, disempowered and disenfranchised.

FYI: I used the "Find" box in the lower left corner of this screen to search for the words "minority," "low-income," "disadvantaged," "disempowered," and "disenfranchised." in the comments that had previously been posted here. I even looked for "poor" just for good measure. Interestingly, not one mention of any of these words appears.

Does this suggest that involvement in Change.org has somehow become limited to those Americans who are, relatively speaking, "high income," "advantaged," "empowered," "franchised" and "rich?"

If not, then I would apologize for suggesting so. If so, then change had better be a-comin' soon to Change.org because millions of Americans are now joining the ranks of the minority and/or low-income as a result of the collapse of our unsustainable form of capitalism.
 

man i miss the league of women voters.

i suggest they be in charge of running the townhall. at least make sure that the people organizing it dont let the 2 parties do what they did to the presidential debates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election_debates#Debate_sponsorship
meh!

YES!  Focus '09, rockin the house.  Keep it up guys, April 18 will be HUGE.

                           Rubber hairs disturb air              
Liquid rubber injected into a mold the shape of a tire cools to solid rubber.  Rubber trapped in the injection ports solidifies also.  When the mold is removed, rubber in the ports remains like a hair on each tire tread and the sidewall.  Flaccid rubber hairs on tread face wear away instantly, polluting the watershed.  Hairs on sidewall remain on the traction device for its life.            Every tire revolution the hairs move lineally the circumference plus the cycloid.  The sail area of the tire hairs—30 centimeters square on tire sidewalls of four 13” wheels—disturbs the air.  (Tested by the Wind, The Oregonian, 12.26.08.)  Furthermore, work is required to accelerate the mass (Physics) of hairs on the four rolling tires plus the spare.  The hairs do not grip the road and are a burden to all motion.              A tire manufacturer will stand above competitors by removing hairs and properly recovering the residue and or the Department of Environmental Quality will cut transportation’s debilitating impact on the local Planet by requiring hairless tires. A tire buyer will save oxygen, sugar or fossil fuel, tires, brakes and pavement plus reduce carbon dioxide, water and land pollution —effortlessly, without technology--using smooth tires, only.  Consider: What goes up as dinosaur farts—add rain—comes down.  Salmon silently sip dinosaur soup as bicycle and motorists mindlessly rake the atmosphere with tire fingers.   Very sincerely,   Zephyr Thoreau Moore  

Good thing there iS going to be a summit in Washington DC!  It's called Powershift, and it's happening Feb. 27th thru March 2nd!  Thousands of young people will descend on DC to demand action for a just transition to a stable climate!  There will be workshops, panels, skills trainings, entertainment and so much more!  Check www.powershift09.org !!!

December 31, 2008  13665 SW Larch Pl 19Beaverton, Oregon 97005-3760503 641-2798              salmoneedshade@hotmail.com  To the EditorThe Oregonian1320 SW BroadwayPortland, Oregon 97201  Dear Editor,

                           Rubber hairs disturb air                 


            Liquid rubber injected into a mold the shape of a tire cools to solid rubber.  Rubber trapped in the injection ports solidifies also.  When the mold is removed, rubber in the ports remains like a hair on each tire tread and the sidewall.  Flaccid rubber hairs on tread face wear away instantly, polluting the watershed.  Hairs on sidewall remain on the traction device for its life.
            Every tire revolution the hairs move lineally the circumference plus the cycloid.  The sail area of the tire hairs—30 centimeters square on tire sidewalls of four 13” wheels—disturbs the air.  (Tested by the Wind, The Oregonian, 12.26.08.)  Furthermore, work is required to accelerate the mass (Physics) of hairs on the four rolling tires plus the spare.  The hairs do not grip the road and are a burden to all motion.            
            A tire manufacturer will stand above competitors by removing hairs and properly recovering the residue and or the Department of Environmental Quality will cut transportation’s debilitating impact on the local Planet by requiring hairless tires.

            A tire buyer will save oxygen, sugar or fossil fuel, tires, brakes and pavement plus reduce carbon dioxide, water and land pollution —effortlessly, without technology--using smooth tires, only.  Consider: What goes up as dinosaur farts—add rain—comes down.  Salmon silently sip dinosaur soup as bicycle and motorists mindlessly rake the atmosphere with tire fingers.   Very sincerely,

Zephyr Thoreau Moore