[Note:  This column was published in the most recent Shift Age Newsletter.  You can sign up for a free subscription here.]

It was one hundred and six years ago that Albert Einstein stated that the speed limit of the cosmos was the speed of light – 186,000 miles per second.  The speed of light, the “c” in the equation E=mc2, has, since Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, been accepted as a fundamental axiom of science.  It is one of the foundations of quantum physics and much of scientific endeavor ever since.

This is why there has been such an uproar over the findings of a recent research project on neutrinos recently conducted at CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research.. Neutrinos, sub-atomic particles were measured as traveling a distance of 450 miles (720 kilometers) 60 nanoseconds faster than it would take a light beam. Even this miniscule difference raises the possibility that the speed of light is no longer the upper speed limit of the universe.  Einstein himself once said that, if you could send a message faster than the speed of light “You could send a telegram to the past” [It is a commentary on the speed of the last century’s pace of invention that Einstein used the word telegram, but that is something for another column, newsletter or even book]

So the science fiction possibility of actual time travel and longstanding ideas of cause and effect might now have to be reconsidered.  The most published quote in reaction to these …

As someone who writes and speaks about alternative and renewable energy, I often get asked about climate change.  What do I think about it?  What is true?  Who to believe?

There is so much noise about it.  The media knows it is an important topic to many and they know that controversy prompts viewership so they create controversy.  The U.N. Copenhagen Climate summit is the current case in point.  TV in particular provides superficial, breathless coverage of registration problems, conflicts,  walk-outs and somewhat angry talking heads arguing points of view.  So what to think?

The most cogent description of the four general points of view concerning climate change and humanity’s causality of it was in a column in the New York Times.  It was written by Stewart Brand.  Stewart Brand is best known for creating the “Whole Earth Catalog” and also for being one of Ken Kesey’s Merry Pranksters.  It can – and has- been argued that Brand and the “Whole Earth Catalog” created the beginning of the environmental movement and the cultural underpinnings of Silicon Valley.  He is that significant of a cultural figure.  After all it was Brand who, in 1968, asked the straightforward question:  “Why haven’t we seen a picture of the whole earth?”

Stewart Brand has been a hero of mine for the last 40 years.  It therefore gave me great comfort to read his column and find that of the four positions he describes around climate change that he and I are in the same one: “Warners”.

Brand describes …

“The chances further down the road seem to me better on the fuel-cell side than on the battery-electric side”

There are a number of readers of this blog and members of the audiences when I speak that just seem to think that hydrogen fuel cell autos are a pipe dream that has no chance of becoming a reality in the next decade.  Comments like the quote above provoke a general dismissal as not being realistic.

During the last three years, I have forecast that 2010-2015 would begin the age of the electric automobile and that 2015-2020 would begin the age of the hydrogen fuel cell automobile.  People accept the first part of that forecast but somehow can’t seem to allow themselves to believe that hydrogen fuel cell cars will ever get to scale.  There is no question that scalability is a problem for hydrogen fuel cell technologies.  There are not enough fueling stations to warrant the production of fuel cell autos and there aren’t enough fuel cell autos to warrant the construction of hydrogen fueling stations.  Joseph Heller’s classic “Catch 22″ in full display..

Here and in speeches I have suggested that now is one of those times when the federal government needs to step up and invest in critically needed infrastructure.  In the 1930’s  FDR had the government fund massive projects that created the hydro-electric industry in the U.S.  In the 1950s Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway bill, creating the national highway system that we all rely for personal transport and the …

In the last column we looked at the general dynamics underlying the reality and need to create an automotive industry in the U.S for the 21^st century. We now take a look at what this industry might look like. An analysis of trends, developing technologies and the role that the federal government can and should play, makes it is clear that this industry will be substantially different than that of the 20^th century.

At the beginning of the 20^th century there were dozens of car companies.  The story of the last century is one of consolidation so that by the 1990s there were only the Big Three and a few foreign companies producing vehicles in the U.S.  These companies from the last century will continue as the scale part of the business for the next 5-10 years.  They will be joined by smaller, more nimble companies that will bring innovation to the marketplace.  Tesla and Aptera, mentioned in the last column are just two examples.  There is a real possibility that there will be dozens of companies by 2015.  The new companies will not provide scale, at least initially, but they will lead the market with innovation.  Some companies may produce hundreds of vehicles, others thousands, others tens of thousands.  These companies will successfully compete with the big companies on the playing field of innovation.

Clearly the cars produced in the next 10-15 years will be generally smaller, much more fuel efficient and will use less and less gasoline.  The first stage …

Last week the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the most ambitious energy and global warming legislation ever debated in Congress.  That is very good news and a good first step.  Of course, since Congress has never been anything close to providing leadership in the areas of alternative energy and climate change, the comparison to past non-action doesn’t mean much.

The other action last week that was a good first step was the announcement by President Obama that a deal had been made with auto manufacturers to impose new mileage and emissions standards for all cars and truck sold in the United States starting in 2012.  While this is very good, it is incremental improvement towards a necessary elevation of mileage standards if we are to gain independence from foreign oil, really lessen oil use  and resultant greenhouse gas emissions.

A growing number of energy, environmental and climate scientists have been providing evidence that even if humanity stopped all greenhouse gas emissions today, there would still be an increase in CO2 particles per million in the atmosphere during the next several years.  So complete stoppage would only start to slow this upward trend.  That is why incremental decreases in fossil fuel consumption will not end or alleviate the global climate change dynamics it will only slightly temper them.  All said, the new mileage and emissions standards are certainly a step in the right direction.  A step that should have been taken a decade ago, so this is just playing catch …