What's in a name? Plenty, according to Dr. Seuss Enterprises; especially if the beloved children's author, known for his creative use of the English language, coined the name.
So what was coal-gasification start-up LoraxAg thinking when they borrowed the name of one of the good doctor's much-loved characters? Let alone one that stands (literally) for the environment and "speaks for the trees."
Two weeks ago, bloggers at Wonk Room informed the owners of Dr. Seuss’s intellectual property of the company's "draping its coal-to-chemicals technology in truffula trees."
Now, the New York Times reports that Dr. Seuss' lawyer Karl ZoBell sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Massachusetts-based company.
"There's no reason for them to use the term," ZoBell told the Times' Green Inc blog, "except to purloin the good will attached to the book and use it for a company that appears to be the opposite of everything the book is about."
Amazing the company's own lawyers didn't warn them that the use of this name might cause difficulty. Or perhaps they did and the company thought they'd just go on biggering and biggering despite the controversy.
We burn coal. We can't ignore it. It's a plentiful resource and fuels the cheap electricity we use everyday. Like it or not, that's the way it is.
Don't get me wrong, I hate things like mountaintop removal and the dangers coal-miners have to face every day. But I'm a realist and I don't believe we're going to be able to transition fast enough to alternatives to completely eliminate coal from our energy diet.
My pal Gregor MacDonald had a stimulating post on Earth Day that generated some lively dialogue on the subject in which he argued that it's hard to win a fight against a cheap BTU. Gregor is smarter than I am on this subject, so you should definitely check out his blog: Gregor.us.
As I wrote in my comment on Gregor's post: I know this isn't a popular view, but coal is still so cheap and plentiful that it's hard to ignore. Of course, there are those who say it can't be done and others who say we'll hit peak coal before getting the technology right. If we do nothing, however, and others continue to ramp up coal production in its dirtiest form, where will we be?
On Sunday night, 60 Minutes featured a story on Clean Coal, including interviews with both Duke Energy's CEO Jim Rogers and NASA's climate scientist James Hansen:
Tonight President Barack Obama addressed concerns that many of us were feeling the past few weeks, that the President who rode in on hope had changed to the steed of despair.
His address tonight was to the Joint session of Congress, but he was also delivering a message to the American people: "We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."
He needed to reassure us that his economic solutions were not a pump and dump play, that he remains confident and hopeful that the American people have the wherewithal to succeed.
"It begins with energy," Mr. Obama said. "We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet, it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient. We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea."
All valid points and something a number of us have been saying for some time: we need to lead in this space and others are already at the table.
President Obama sounds much like candidate Obama on this point, "I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders – and I know you don’t either. It is time for America to lead again."
He is still calling for doubling the US supply of renewable energy in the next three years, and for laying down "thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy to cities and towns across this country."
Even energy efficiency got its due: "We will put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills."
He pushed the point further by saying that "to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy."
He asked Congress to send him legislation that "places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America."
In support of that, he outlined how the US "will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks."
I got some flak for defending clean coal in Obama's list. (It's okay, I'm used to it.) I simply think we need to invest in figuring out whether clean coal technologies CAN be developed before we dismiss it outright. (Someone on Twitter reminded me of GreenFuel Technologies Corporation, which "recycles" CO2 emissions using high-yield algae farms. The CO2 recyclers seemed to get stiffed in the StimPack, which is unfortunate in my view.)
I'd like to see more details and look forward to tracking this as it develops.
For now, the message was positive: "We can and will," rather than, "Holy Shit, this is worse than I thought." Thank you, speechwriters!
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">