text:
Toward a Long-Range Energy Security Policy
Events in recent decades have produced a broader definition of security.1 The entry of phrases like "environmental security," "resource conflict," and "energy security" into the lexicon of security experts provides examples of this changing dialogue, but these concepts remain on the margins of the discussion for the most part. Where US energy policy is concerned, the debate generally has been limited to arguments that the United States must preserve its access to the oil reserves of the Middle East and Central Asia, and a vague sense that domestic energy supplies would be highly desirable. Cornucopian optimists continue to insist that oil will remain abundant and cheap for the foreseeable future, and indeed more concern is expressed over the unsavory character of governments in major oil-producing states than over the finite nature of the resources themselves.
The vagaries of oil politics (and the ecological problems raised by carbon emissions) are indeed serious problems, and they are not entirely separable from the questions this article means to raise, but the focus here will be on the problem of fossil fuel scarcity at the global level. This article seeks to provide an overview of the situation, including the prospects for an economy based on renewable energy, the security problems likely to result from tightening oil supplies, and a possible basis for making the transition to alternatives widely acknowledged as inevitable in the long run.
The Outlook for Energy
At the time of this writing, the price of oil has hit $70 per barrel and is projected to rise even higher in the near term. While not a record when the figure is adjusted for inflation, this was still commonly taken as a sign that the era of "cheap energy" may be coming to an end.
Other numbers bear this out. Annual worldwide oil consumption is roughly 29 billion barrels a year, and estimated to be rising at two percent annually.2 While there is widespread disagreement over their actual size, the world's total "proven" reserves of oil come to roughly one trillion barrels. A linear projection has oil supplies running out around 2030 after a long period of rising prices and tightening supplies, likely to begin after production peaks, generally expected to be sometime between 2010 and 2020—maybe just five years away.
The consequences of a shortfall in oil supplies on the scale of such predictions are as obvious as they are terrifying. A prolonged economic contraction and possibly a desperate scramble for resources that might bring major powers to blows are not out of the question, especially when the cost of other problems likely to place more pressure on the energy base (climate change, water shortages, population growth, etc.) are taken into account.3 In the absolute worst case, modernity might simply grind to a halt, a catastrophe that James Howard Kunstler describes in his recent book on the subject, The Long Emergency.
Of course, linear projections have their limitations, and any number of developments could throw them off—unanticipated changes in the character of economic productivity, or an economic slowdown, for instance. Actual oil reserves are likely larger than the proven figure, which would delay the crunch for some years. Rising energy needs will mean higher prices and shorter supplies, which will stretch out the supply by encouraging conservation.4 They also will produce increased efforts to supplement oil with more plentiful coal, "heavy oil," and natural gas. The degree to which these alternatives can pick up the slack, however, is a subject of intense disagreement, as all these resources will mean higher energy prices.5 Moreover, they do not eliminate the problem of the finite amount of these resources, with natural gas reserves particularly unlikely to last all that much longer than oil.
In short, the oil age may end within a generation given the present economic picture, with potentially dire consequences. The prospects of alternatives to fossil fuels are therefore the key issue, such as the expanded use of nuclear energy or, ideally, renewable energy sources. Many observers predict that it will be decades at the very least before these inherently more difficult energy sources can be exploited on a sufficiently large scale to meet the needs of advanced societies. The use of renewables has expanded rapidly in recent years, but these energy sources still supply only a small part of overall consumption, even in leaders like Denmark, where wind energy provides 10 to 15 percent of that country's electricity. If anything, given the scope of the problem and the length of time for which it has been around, the pace of actual progress has been frustratingly glacial. While the pace may be accelerating, a gap between desired levels of energy output and those actually attainable through these means is conceivable.
Nonetheless, the doomsday scenario posited by Kunstler and others is not a necessary outcome. The problem is not that substitutes do not exist, but that they are, in the view of many analysts, too expensive or too unwieldy to support desired levels of economic productivity and living standards. There is little doubt that there would be some significant transition costs, as there are in every major economic change. Observers hostile to these technologies, however, routinely play on popular fears that any change in the status quo will force Americans to give up their cars, or kill economic growth. Their exaggerations aside, such arguments conveniently neglect the fact that the exhaustion of oil resources in an unprepared world will be incalculably more devastating than any plausible adaptation, and that the earlier the transition begins, the easier it will be to spread the costs over time.
More important, such analyses tend to suffer from three major deficiencies that exaggerate the difficulties involved with alternatives. The first is that calculating the costs and benefits of oil against other energy sources is far more complicated than studies pointing to the cost-ineffectiveness of renewables admit. Many costs of fossil fuel use are easily externalized, distorting the picture. The cost of pollution, military expenditures aimed at securing oil sources, and other kinds of subsidies mask the actual price of "cheap" oil—as do the very low gasoline taxes Americans enjoy.6 Certain savings from the distributed energy production that renewables might allow, while potentially substantial, are not easily or automatically factored into such calculations.7 Moreover, solar, wind, and other sources will become relatively less expensive as oil prices rise. And it also should be noted that many experts regard wind power as already competitive with fossil fuels in some geographically favorable areas.
The tendency to underestimate the gains that alternatives may bring is reinforced by a broader tendency to stress costs more than benefits, not only on the part of oil industry boosters, but generally due to the changing nature of political debate.8 The potential for a rapid changeover also tends to be underestimated, observers forgetting that comparably large transformations have happened before in a relatively short period of time. Oil became cheaper than coal only in the mid-1950s, a mere 50 years ago. As a result, coal went from generating 100 percent of Europe's thermal electricity to less than half by 1973, oil picking up much of the slack even as overall energy production grew substantially.9
The second problem with such predictions is their built-in assumption that the relevant technologies will be static. Future improvements cannot be taken for granted, but are a near-certainty nonetheless, given the prolonged drop in the price of solar- and wind-generated energy since the 1970s, and the prospects for both continued research and development and mass production. The already low price of wind power can drop further still, given the potential of innovations like flying wind generators. Capable of exploiting the jet stream and returning the electricity to the ground through a tether, a few clusters of six hundred each could meet the entire energy needs of an industrial nation like Canada.10
There are even strong indications that electricity produced by photovoltaic solar cells will, assuming sufficient effort, become competitive in price with even subsidized, deceptively cheap oil and gas in a matter of years rather than decades. This may be due to new, low-cost materials; designs which use a greater part of the electromagnetic spectrum; more efficient use of their surface area; easily installed, self-assembling liquid solar cell coatings; and architectural structures maximizing output.11 Several of these developments could be flashes in the pan, something to which energy production has sadly been prone; for half a century fusion power has been "30 years away." Nevertheless, given the long-term trend of improvement and the number of directions from which the problem is being attacked, some approaches will likely pay off.
A third problem is the tendency to view the matter as a choice between the outright replacement of fossil fuels or nothing at all. The reality, however, is that partial solutions can provide a cushion until a more complete transition can be brought about. This being the case, it matters little if renewable energy production will at first be undergirded by more traditional supplies. Solar cells and wind turbines will be made in factories powered by oil-burning plants. To state this as proof that alternatives to oil are unrealistic is nonsense. The energy base of the future will have to be created using the energy base existing now, just as the oil-based economy was built using previously existing sources. Of greater concern, many schemes for a hydrogen economy involve the extraction of hydrogen from natural gas or other fossil fuels, with power supplied by traditional electricity sources like oil, coal, and nuclear generators. Hydrogen, however, also can be extracted directly from water through photoelectrochemical processes or electrolysis, which could be powered by cheap wind and solar energy.12
The problem, then, is less the "technical ingenuity" needed to produce these technologies than the "social ingenuity" which will implement the technologies on a national and global basis.13 Renewable energy technology can potentially do the job; what is really at issue is whether or not good use will be made of that potential. Nonetheless, the political problem posed by the demise of the fossil fuel era is not limited to the challenge of constructing a new energy base.
Security Concerns
Even without taking into account related problems like the greenhouse effect, the security problems posed by the exhaustion of supplies of easily accessible, cheap oil and gas are highly varied and daunting. The likely result would be the exacerbation of familiar problems like resource conflict, weapons proliferation, and state failure. However, other problems are more novel, not least of all the potential for changes in the international balance of power based not only on which countries control the lion's share of the world's fossil fuel supplies, but which are most dependent on those supplies.
New Resource Wars
The most obvious concern is a reinvigoration of resource conflict. As the oil deposits believed to lie under a disputed piece of ground or sea floor become more valuable economically, governments might be more prepared to fight for them. Since the War on Terrorism began in 2001, China, seeing itself in a more vulnerable strategic position, has been more willing to negotiate its claims over the South China Sea.14 However, the issue has yet to be resolved, and an oil-hungry China can yet take a harder line, especially if this becomes more profitable. China also has behaved provocatively elsewhere, sending naval vessels into Japanese claims around the Senkaku Islands.15 Similar conflicts remain unresolved in other regions, including sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.16 Moreover, even states unlikely to go to war over territory would face greater prospects of involvement in an armed conflict, and find a powerful incentive to develop and deploy long-range power-projection capabilities. Resource wars also can be a cause of internal conflicts or unrest. The war in the Indonesian region of Aceh is partly driven by the government's determination to hold onto an oil-rich region, and the resentment of the inhabitants has been partly a response to the damage oil production has done to local communities. Oil also was at stake in the fight over East Timor, which on the first day of its independence concluded a deal with Australia regarding its oil-rich offshore claims.
The problem may in fact be exacerbated by certain solutions to the world's energy problems. To give one example, the development of new technologies which permit cost-effective drilling for oil in deeper waters could create new flash-points. Cheaper deep-water drilling, for instance, would make the oil under the South China Sea a more valuable prize.17 As certain kinds of alternative energy technologies are developed, the value of certain resources is also likely to become more strategically important (like platinum for hydrogen fuel cells), with similar results.
As the situation stands, two-thirds of what were the high seas in 1958 have been "territorialized" to some degree. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea extended territorial waters from three to 12 miles, recognized 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones and 350-mile continental shelf claims, and permitted the enclosure of the internal waters of archipelagic states like Japan.18 At the same time, the mineral wealth of these regions has remained largely unexploited. While the ambitious ocean mining schemes of 30 or 40 years ago amounted to little, rising energy costs and improved technology could give them a future—and make the right to profit from them a new cause of conflict.
Increased Disorder
Resource conflict, however, is likely to be confined within particular regions. The economic effects of an oil shortage would be global. With less energy at their disposal, societies and governments everywhere will have more difficulty coping with problems likely to be of a more severe character—burgeoning populations, climate change, and shortages of such critical resources as water and arable land. The problem of the salinated and damaged farmland on which a third of the world's crops is presently grown is a case in point. Aside from expensive repair, costly methods like drip-irrigation will be needed to keep such lands arable, necessitating more, not less energy.19
Another likely ramification of such an energy shock is a new wave of debt crises and state failures. As in the 1970s, those most vulnerable would be developing nations short on hard currency and dependent on oil imports, which might see their development progress strangled by a spike in prices. If the prospect of 2050s America resembling a Mad Max movie is far-fetched and extreme, it is not so for less fortunate regions where such regressions have already happened, as in Somalia.20 Lacking appropriate or adequate capital, institutions, and technical knowledge, their situations will much more readily degenerate to the point of collapse.21 And, as events in recent years have demonstrated, advanced nations will not easily insulate themselves from these problems, given the refuge for criminal activity and terrorism such areas will provide, as well as the waves of refugees they may generate. It may even be possible for practitioners of a radical ideology to seize power in a major state. Even without that happening, we could see an inward turn on the part of major powers seeking to establish self-contained economic empires, as happened during the Great Depression.22
Nuclear Proliferation
Alternatively, oil shortages, or the prospect of them, may put pressure on states to follow France's path in the 1970s and invest heavily in nuclear technology. The problems posed by greater nuclear proliferation (or poorly built and operated reactors) need little elaboration.
Perceiving a heightened threat environment amid more widespread resource conflict and state failure, states may be more likely to seek out such systems regardless of the inherent dangers. With greater insecurity and the need for alternatives to fossil fuels feeding each other, the nonproliferation regime will be under greater pressure than it is today.
A Return to 1973?
America's dependence on foreign oil (a problem that Arctic oil drilling will not even come close to solving) makes the nation susceptible to foreign leverage, and the Middle East aside, other major oil-producers may have strategic interests or goals conflicting with those of the United States.23 Given the present diversity of suppliers, a future version of the OPEC embargo may be unlikely, but the contraction of oil supplies is still likely to mean shocks ahead.
Moreover, it must be noted that the pain of a shock will not be felt evenly. Efficient energy users will suffer less, and vice-versa. At present, that would be to the disadvantage of the United States relative to other developed nations like Germany.24 Correspondingly, states which derive a higher proportion of their energy from renewables would be less vulnerable economically, a condition easier to achieve if energy use is already efficient.
This raises another issue of particular concern for the position of the United States, one generally given short shrift. The hype about information technology in the 1990s contributed to a complacent assumption of American technological dominance, which is simply baseless where renewable energy is concerned.25 The small but rapidly growing world market in photovoltaics, fuel cell-based vehicles, and wind turbines is dominated by Europe and Japan, where the most promising research continues. In fact, America's profile has actually shrunk in this area, with its share of the world market in photovoltaics falling to 11 percent in 2004 from 25 percent just five years earlier.26
One result is that, short of a change in this situation, a conversion of the national energy base will likely expand the already massive US trade deficit, rather than constituting a new opportunity for American growth. The possibility must therefore be considered that an oil shock may hurt the United States more severely than the other developed nations, weakening its international position relatively as well as absolutely.
Meeting the Challenge
The most obvious response, at least from the perspective of traditional national security, is to take the dangers described above into account in threat planning. In other words, in the event of a new energy crisis, there may be more state failures, weapons proliferation, and resource conflict. Nonetheless, military force is inadequate to deal with the larger problem of relieving the dependence on finite fossil fuels—although government research and development (R&D), military as well as civilian, can play (and already is playing) a role in creating a path out of that dependence.
The predominance of neoliberal economic theory makes it easy to forget the degree to which key economic innovations have been pioneered and supported by government.27 While it is the robber barons who are celebrated, the railroads of the 19th century were built with massive government assistance in the form of loans, land grants, and other subsidies. In the 1950s, no one waited for the private sector to step in and provide a highway system. Modern computers, the internet, and space technology all benefited immeasurably from government research, and indeed may have been inconceivable without government efforts.
The job of government is precisely to step in where a need exists when the private sector is either unwilling or unable to satisfy it. This is the case at present with renewable energy, and at this point it is worthwhile to reflect on America's history in this area. "Big Science" in the United States has been most successful when explicitly oriented toward a particular goal, as with the early space program. The Soviet launch of the first Sputnik satellite was a profound shock, but America responded effectively with massively enlarged investment in scientific education and research. Half a century later the United States is in a dominant position in space, its satellite networks a cornerstone of its unprecedented military superiority.
Where energy is concerned, the "Sputnik moment" has long since come and gone. The project of freeing the American economy from oil dependence arguably deserves the same priority the moon mission enjoyed 40 years ago, speaking as it does to a far more central national interest, and it is worthwhile considering why the results achieved to date have been so modest.
The simple fact is that US energy policy traditionally aimed at an expansion of oil and gas production, while investing heavily in nuclear energy. There was a brief enthusiasm for renewable sources and conservation in the 1970s, but the economic reforms of the 1980s are generally considered to have ended this. Research and development funding for energy was substantially reduced, and tax credits and regulations were abandoned to the end of creating a "free market" in energy.28 The nascent alternative energy industry was not only left to sink or swim among more mature competition, but as a net result of assorted tax policies and subsidies it was put at a disadvantage, and it withered.
When considering the character of the energy business, it is hardly surprising that they did not pick up the slack. Energy firms invest relatively little in R&D, about 0.5 percent of revenue, compared with 10 percent in high-tech fields, the figure actually declining in the 1980s and 1990s.29 Moreover, the emphasis has not been on "system-shattering" research, but on "conservative innovations able to pay off in the short term," a category which generally has excluded renewables.30
All of this made alternative energy an especially poor candidate for the free-market path, though to be fair, previous energy technologies typically required massive government support before becoming sustainable. Of some $150 billion spent subsidizing solar, wind, and nuclear energy between 1947 and 1999, more than $145 billion went to nuclear (96 percent of the total).31 This may seem appropriate, given how much more energy nuclear generators are producing today compared with wind and solar. Between 1947 and 1961, however, federal subsidies toward nuclear energy on a per-kilowatt basis were 40 times those provided to wind (which had then been comparably important), and it is difficult to imagine nuclear energy's comparative efficiency having come about without such massively disproportionate early investment.32
Since then research dollars have continued to favor fossil fuels and nuclear energy, arguably beyond a point of diminishing returns.33 R&D spending for renewables has been about $10 billion, compared with $20 billion and $40 billion for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, respectively.34 While that figure still appears large, it is less impressive when broken down by area. American spending on hydrogen fuel in the 1970s, for instance, totaled a paltry $24 million and represented only a third of Western Europe's spending on the same area of research.35 The quality of that research spending also has been questionable, as the spectacular success of Denmark's much smaller R&D program in wind turbine technology demonstrates.36
In short, renewables were never given a proper chance because of a conventional wisdom that says "let the market do it," no matter how unwilling the market proves to be, and the disinterest of the powerful oil, gas, and nuclear lobbies, which have continued to receive the lion's share of government support.37 The progress of sources like wind and solar energy since the 1970s occurred not because of but in spite of the policies of the last quarter-century, and, given political realities, this seems unlikely to change. Nevertheless, with each passing year it becomes harder to deny that change is called for, and that the arguments against a change simply do not hold water.
The resistance to planning that left the United States without an industrial policy has resulted in a $700 billion annual trade deficit, caused in large part by American imports of manufactured products once made at home. With the beginning of the end of the oil age possibly around the corner, the United States cannot afford to be without an energy policy. A logical starting point is a program to nurture renewable sources and conserve fossil fuels on a scale far more ambitious than anything previously attempted or currently being considered.
Even the aforementioned $10 billion figure is modest in comparison with the sums spent on major national projects like the Manhattan Project and the Apollo moon missions in much shorter periods of time, adjusting for inflation and economic growth. For that matter, it is modest in comparison with public R&D spending generally, which exceeds $100 billion a year—despite the continuing decrease of federal spending as a share of the country's total R&D funding.38
Whatever its precise size, this program ideally should be aimed not only at making the United States a world leader in the field of renewable energy sources, but at reducing America's fossil fuel consumption below present levels in absolute terms before 2020 and eliminating fossil fuel dependence no later than 2040 and preferably earlier. To that end, the United States should pursue a broad range of approaches, not only hydrogen (the production of which should be delinked from fossil fuels and rare minerals to the extent possible), but also photovoltaics, wind, ethanol, biomass, and, while they are more dependent on geography, tidal and geothermal. The characteristics of some of these energy sources offer a variety of practical benefits, making them worthy of military R&D dollars.
One advantage is the potential that renewable sources offer for distributed power.39 Given the prospect that US forces will increasingly be based in less-developed regions like the Middle East, Central Asia, and even sub-Saharan Africa, not being dependent on local power grids can be an advantage. For example, at present the self-sustaining Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has a wind turbine installation which produces 5 to 12 percent of its energy during the spring, and up to 25 percent during the windy period of the fall months, reducing diesel imports by 650,000 gallons annually.40
At the same time, the unique needs of military programs make them a logical starting point for at least some research in this area. Running information-age campaigns with industrial-age logistical systems is already problematic, and renewable energy sources or conservation technologies might provide a partial solution. The Army is presently funding a program to develop flexible solar panels that may ultimately be woven into the fabric of tents or uniforms to supply power for communications equipment, computers, and other electrical appliances.41 A hydrogen fuel cell able to get more miles per gallon could be a considerable boon to mechanized Army units, to say nothing of Navy and Air Force units, which may see benefits even sooner. Submarines using fuel cells are not only possible, but, in the form of the Type 212A, are already entering service with the German navy.42
Research into technologies facilitating conservation also would play a role in a balanced strategy, since more efficient energy use makes it easier for still-developing renewable energy power sources to meet a given need—and, in any event, these are seen by many observers as more promising in the near term. Energy savings can come from sources less familiar than the typical examples of hybrid or electric cars, more efficient appliances, and solar water heating. The use of strong, ultralight materials such as new, carbon-based ceramics can reduce fuel consumption. A car made out of carbon nanotubes, for instance, would weigh 50 pounds, and while a 50-pound car may be unattractive for one reason or another, it demonstrates the potential for very large fuel economies. The development of substitutes for oil in products like plastics, fertilizers, and pharmaceuticals also can assist, as can improved mass transit systems, a modern rail system, modernized power grids, support for zero-energy housing, and practical superconductors.43
All of the above hold the promise of reducing electricity and fossil fuel consumption to a fraction of present levels without sacrificing modern conveniences. There also are ways in which technology can aid conservation by enabling people and goods to move less without sacrificing economic productivity or the quality of life (and in some cases, perhaps increasing them), as by enlarging telecommuting.44 Another is a reduction of "production sharing," the practice of widely dispersing the manufacture of a single item or, more radically, the movement of production closer to markets via replicating technologies like the three-dimensional printer, a technology that exists today, albeit in its infancy.
Beyond research and development, every reasonable effort should be made to facilitate the mass production of these technologies and adopt them at home and abroad, including carefully thought-out tax credits and buyback rates for net-excess power. Should American companies seriously enter the market in new types of energy and conservation technologies, the broadening of effort, greater production, and increased competition could drive prices down further. Purchases of the relevant technology can be subsidized, and government and military facilities can assist by purchasing their power from such sources, boosting the market. Protectionist measures, however, are uncalled for as a way of bringing about this end. Indeed, cooperation would be a preferable approach, given that this already belated process might be disrupted by very little interference. Such a project also could be a basis for collaborating with allies irked by a perceived lack of US concern for the natural environment.
Moreover, it must be remembered that the greatest increases in oil consumption are coming not from the developed nations, but from developing ones like China and India. These represent perhaps an even more promising market than developed nations for the technology in key respects. Precisely because their energy consumption is growing more rapidly than anywhere else, their infrastructures are still being built; according to one estimate, a third of the world's population is still unconnected to an electric grid. Additionally, their energy consumption will be lower for the foreseeable future, making at least some of their demand more easily met through renewables.
Sales of the technology can be facilitated through foreign aid programs, and such an action shouldn't be viewed as charitable. To the extent that the access of other nations to this technology will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, conserve the fossil fuel supplies which will continue to meet much of America's energy needs for decades to come, expand the market for US companies working in this arena, and diminish the security burden resulting from a scramble for cheap oil, then doing so will be very much in the national interest of the United States.
The program proposed here no doubt appears exceedingly ambitious, and it certainly is, but this is a different matter from saying that it is impossible, undesirable, or unnecessary. One might also protest that despite the unease surrounding oil prices of $70 a barrel, there is no "emergency" yet. The point, however, is to prevent the situation from ever becoming one.
1. Barry Buzan, "Security Analysis: Conceptual Apparatus," in Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe, ed. Ole Waever et al. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993), pp. 21-47.
2. US Central Intelligence Agency, "World," in CIA World Factbook 2005, 9 August 2005, www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html#Econ; US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2005—Highlights, July 2005, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html, and International Energy Outlook 2004, April 2004, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo04/index.html.
3. See Colin Mason, The 2030 Spike: Countdown to Global Catastrophe (London: Earthscan Publications, 2003.)
4. Such factors combined to make the United States more energy-efficient in the past, dropping the amount of oil and gas needed to produce a dollar of Gross Domestic Product by half since 1973, especially before the drop in oil prices after the mid-1980s. According to one analysis, energy savings already have become the largest "source" of US energy. See Amory B. and L. Hunter Lovins, "Mobilizing Energy Solutions," American Prospect, 28 January 2002.
5. Carbon capture technologies may, however, make the inevitable, expanded use of fossil fuels more palatable from an environmental perspective. S. Julio Friedman and Thomas Homer-Dixon, "Out of the Energy Box," Foreign Affairs, 83 (November/December 2004).
6. For two conflicting views of the matter, see Douglas Koplow and Aaron Martin, Fueling Global Warming: Federal Subsidies to Oil in the United States (Washington: Greenpeace, June 1998), http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/oil/fdsuboil.pdf#search='fueling%20global%20warming%20greenpeace'; and American Petroleum Institute, "Fueling Confusion: Deceptive Greenpeace Study Premised on Flawed Estimates of Subsidy," November 1999, www.earthtrack.net/earthtrack/library/APIGreenpeace.pdf#search='fueling%20global%20warming%20greenpeace'.
7. To give two examples, there are "co-generation" (using the heat generated by electricity for other purposes), and the energy savings which come with the generation of power near the end user's location, since five to eight percent of electricity generated is lost in transmission over long-distance lines.
8. See Zaki Laidi's writing on "avoidance strategies" in A World Without Meaning, trans. June Burnham and Jenny Coulon (London: Routledge, 1998).
9. Paul Bairoch, Economics and World History (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1993), p. 62.
10. Given the very high levels of relatively inexpensive power that a small number of such clusters can produce, this approach would seem especially attractive for the purposes of a rapid changeover and may therefore be deserving of special attention. Lawrence Solomon, "Flying Windmills," National Post, 19 March 2005.
11. "Discovery May Spur Cheap Solar Power," CNN.com, 2 October 2003, www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/10/02/solar.cells.reut/; Charles Choi, "Nanotech Improving Energy Options," Space-Daily, 27 May 2004, www.spacedaily.com/news/nanotech-04zj.html; Ian Sample, "'Self-Assembling' Solar Cells Developed," New Scientist, August 2001; "Solar Cells Go Organic," Economist, 20 June 2002; Stephen Leahy, "Solar Tower of Power," Wired News, 24 February 2005.
12. For that matter, hydrogen also can be recovered from ethanol, sunflower seed oil, and other substances, in some cases even more efficiently. Mark Clayton, "One Step Closer to Hydrogen Economy?" Christian Science Monitor, 19 February 2004; Gabe Romain, "Sunflowers Seed Hydrogen Economy," Better Humans, 25 August 2004, www.betterhumans.com/News/3868/Default.aspx; Daithi O Hanluain, "Hydrogen Fuel Closer to Fruition," Wired News, 2 September 2004. Another procedure uses algae to generate the product. Michael Mechanic, "It Came from the Swamp" Wired, April 2002. A less tractable problem is the use of rare and expensive platinum as a catalyst in fuel cell designs, though substitutes are presently being explored, including one based on iron. "Researchers Investigate Iron-Based Electrocatalyst as Platinum Substitute," The Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Letter, 1 March 2005.
13. For more on the concepts of "technical ingenuity" and "social ingenuity," see Thomas Homer-Dixon, The Ingenuity Gap (New York: Random House, 2001).
14. Thomas K. Kane and Lawrence W. Serewicz, "China's Hunger: The Consequences of a Rising Demand for Food and Energy," Parameters, 31 (Autumn 2001), 63-75.
15. John J. Tkacik, Jr., "Japan's Islands and China's Illicit Claims," Heritage Foundation press release, 14 April 2005.
16. For a broad survey of the problem, see Michael Klare, Resource Wars (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2001).
17. Mark J. Valencia, "China and the South China Sea Disputes," Adelphi Paper, No. 298 (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995).
18. Charles E. Pirtle, "Military Uses of Ocean Space and the Law of the Sea in the New Millennium," Ocean Development and International Law, 31 (January-June 2000).
19. Russell Clemings, Mirage: The False Promise of Desert Agriculture (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1996).
20. Robert Kaplan, "The Coming Anarchy," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994, pp. 44-76.
21. Thomas Homer-Dixon, "On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict," International Security, 16 (Fall 1991), 76-116.
22. Harold James, The End of Globalization (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2001).
23. Americans are prone to forget that "the oil weapon" was not an innovation of disgruntled Middle Eastern states, but of the United States itself, which used it with considerable effectiveness in the past—for example, in the embargo against Japan prior to America's entry into World War II, and in the Suez crisis in 1956 against Britain and France.
24. Germany gets by on one-half as much energy for every dollar of GDP it produces, despite deriving a greater share of that GDP from energy-intensive manufacturing. Ricardo Bayon, "The Fuel Subsidy We Need," The Atlantic Monthly, February 2003. In the future it may be necessary to look at productivity not only per manhour, but also per watt-hour to gain a sense of a nation's competitiveness.
25. This complacency is perhaps reinforced by very high levels of scientific output (as measured in papers published and frequency of citation) and R&D spending, which far exceed those of any other nation in the world. America's lead, however, is less formidable when compared with those for the European Union as a whole, rather than single member states, and when expenditures on military R&D are excluded from the figure. See Robert L. Paarlberg, "Knowledge as Power: Science, Military Dominance, and US Security," International Security, 29 (Summer 2004), 122-51.
26. Eugene Linden, "Selling the Sun . . . And the Wind," Time, 16 July 2001.
27. Kevin Phillips, Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich (New York: Broadway Books, 2002).
28. Salvatore Lazzari, Energy Tax Policy, report, Congressional Research Service, 24 August 2001. At the same time, the abandonment of fuel efficiency regulations (and dropping oil prices) caused fuel efficiency to drop in important areas like automobile design. Efficiency there generally flat-lined in the 25-30 mile per gallon range by the mid-1980s, with car manufacturers instead looking to build large, powerful vehicles rather than efficient ones, though a market for more efficient hybrids is growing. Lovins, "Mobilizing Energy Solutions."
29. Marshall Goldberg, "Federal Energy Subsidies: Not All Technologies Are Created Equal," Renewable Energy Policy Project, Research Report, July 2000, p. 2.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid., p. 3. Fossil fuels also were subsidized on a scale comparable to nuclear, some $268.5 billion from 1918 to 1980 (in 1999 dollars). Battelle Report, "Analysis of Federal Incentives Used to Stimulate Energy Production," Pacific Northwest Laboratory, February 1980 (Revision #2), p. 276. Cited in National Environmental Trust, America, Oil and National Security: What Government Data Really Show (Washington: National Environmental Trust, 2002).
32. Goldberg., p. 4.
33. T. F. H. Allen, Joseph Tainter, and Thomas W. Hoekstra, Supply-Side Sustainability (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2003).
34. Fred J. Sissine, "Energy Efficiency: A New National Outlook?" Congressional Research Service Reports, 12 December 1996, www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/energy/eng-28.cfm.
35. Peter Hoffman, Tomorrow's Energy: Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and the Prospects of a Cleaner Planet (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002).
36. For more on this issue, see Daniel M. Berman and John T. O'Connor, Who Owns The Sun? People, Politics, and the Struggle for a Solar Economy (White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Publishing, 1996).
37. Ibid.
38. This is down from 50 percent in the mid-1980s to 33 percent in 2003. Eric Bloch, "Securing U.S. Research Strength," Issues in Science & Technology, 19 (Summer 2003).
39. David P. Blanks, "Fuel Cells: Powerful Implications," Air & Space Power Journal, 18 (Spring 2004).
40. Kathleen T. Rhem, "Guantanamo Harnessing Wind to Create Power, Cut Emissions," Navy NewsStand, 30 March 2005, www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=17712.
41. John Gartner, "Solar to Keep Army on the Go," Wired News, 29 June 2004, www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,64021,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1.
42. "First Fuel-Cell Sub is Christened at HDW," Submarine Review, July 2002, pp. 88-89.
43. Given the possibility that plastics, for instance, can be grown, investment in high-yield vat or other indoor agriculture could be an avenue of interest. John Carey, et al., "The Biotech Century," Business Week, 10 March 1997, p. 90.
44. Andrew Murr, "No More Electric Bills," Newsweek, 15 August 2005, p. 43.
Nader Elhefnawy is a graduate of Florida International University and a graduate student at the University of Miami. He has previously published several articles on international security and military topics in various periodicals including Armor and Astropolitics.
© 2006 Nader Elhefnawy


text:
These New York City museums are either always free, free on specific days of the week or free for select hours. Find one near you, and take advantage of their generosity.
Note that this takes into account general ADMISSION only; certain events and special exhibitions may still require a fee.
For hours and prices of more NYC museums and institutions, see ourSchedules and Admissions page.
Always Free
African Burial Ground Memorial Site
BRIC House
The Bronx Museum of the Arts
Federal Hall National Memorial
The Federal Reserve Bank
General Grant National Memorial
Hamilton Grange
The Harbor Defense Museum
The Hispanic Society of America
Irish Hunger Memorial
Leslie–Lohman Museum of Gay and Lesbian Art
Museum of Biblical Art
The Museum at the Fashion Institute of Technology
National Museum of the American Indian
The New York Public Library Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
New York Transit Museum Annex & Store, Grand Central Terminal
Queens County Farm Museum
Scandinavia House: The Nordic Center in America
Snug Harbor Cultural Center & Botanical Garden (grounds and botanical garden only)
Socrates Sculpture Park
Soldiers and Sailors Monument
Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace
Sometimes Free
The following museums typically require paid ADMISSION but open their doors for free on specific days or times—though again, some do charge for ADMISSION to specific events or sections. Be sure to consult their websites or call ahead if you hope to see a specific exhibition.
Museum at Eldridge Street (10am to noon, tours)
9/11 Memorial & Museum (5pm to close, best to reserve two weeks ahead)
The Brooklyn Botanic Garden
Morgan Library and Museum (McKim Rooms only, 3 to 5pm)
Wave Hill (9am to noon)
Bronx Zoo (pay what you will for grounds access; does not include admission to special exhibitions like the Butterfly Garden, Congo Gorilla Forest and JungleWorld)
Museum of Jewish Heritage (4 to 8pm)
New York Botanical Garden (free grounds access; does not include entry to the Enid A. Haupt Conservatory, special exhibitions like the Orchid Show and Holiday Train Show, Everett Children's Adventure Garden, Rock and Native Plant Gardens or Tram Tour)
Queens Botanical Garden (April through October, 3 to 6pm; all day rest of year)
Staten Island Zoo (2 to 4:45pm)
Brooklyn Children's Museum (3 to 5pm)
Museum of Arts and Design (pay what you will, 6 to 9pm)
Museum of Chinese in America
New Museum (pay what you will, 7 to 9pm)
Asia Society (September through June, 6 to 9pm)
Historic Richmond Town (1 to 5pm)
Japan Society (6 to 9pm)
Morgan Library and Museum (7 to 9pm)
Museum of Modern Art (4 to 8pm)
Museum of the Moving Image (4 to 8pm)
New York Aquarium (pay what you will, 3pm to close; 4pm to close in summer)
New York Hall of Science (September through June, 2 to 5pm)
The New-York Historical Society (pay what you will, 6 to 8pm)
Rubin Museum of Art (6 to 10pm)
First Friday of the Month
Children's Museum of Manhattan (5 to 8pm)
Neue Galerie (6 to 8pm)
The Noguchi Museum
The Brooklyn Botanic Garden (10am to noon)
The Jewish Museum
Museum of American Finance
New York Botanical Garden (free grounds pass, 9 to 10am)
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum (pay what you will, 5:45 to 7:45pm)
Wave Hill (9am to noon)
First Saturday of the Month
Brooklyn Museum (5 to 11pm)
Third Saturday of the Month
El Museo del Barrio
Frick Collection (pay what you will, 11am to 1pm)
The Morgan Library and Museum (McKim Rooms only, 4 to 6pm)
New York Hall of Science (September through June, 10 to 11am)
Queens Botanical Garden (April through October, 4 to 6pm)
Studio Museum in Harlem
Brooklyn Botanic Garden (November through February, weekdays)
Queens Botanical Garden (November through March, Tuesday through Sunday)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
NEA VP: face of America changing but education remains key to opportunity
WASHINGTON - September 14, 2009 -
In a speech today at a gathering of influential Hispanic political, community and political leaders, NEA Vice President Lily Eskelsen pointed out that Hispanics are changing the composition of cities and states from coast-to-coast and influencing all aspects of American life but that education still remains the key to opportunity.
"The face of America is changing," Eskelsen told the audience of Hispanic leaders. "But one thing will not change. It hasn't changed for over 200 years. Public education will continue to be the key—la llave a la puerta de la oportunidad. Everything hinges on public education because NEA's mission is to take all children, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, income, language, skills or ability or disability; we take all children and give them the keys to the doors they might want to open."
Eskelsen is one of the highest-ranking labor leaders in the United States and one of its most influential Hispanic educators. She delivered the opening luncheon address at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) Public Policy Conference, an annual event that brings together leaders to address issues affecting the Hispanic community.
In her speech, Eskelsen also recognized the critical role the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration are playing in helping to transform public education, with the largest investment of federal funds in the history of education. She noted, "We are lucky to have an administration that puts children first because this country cannot afford to leave any more students behind—not one."
Recounting her experience, Eskelsen said, "My mother used to tell me to stop whining about homework. She said every class I took was a key to put in my pocket. She'd say learn the time tables—that's a key. She said: Memorize the Preamble to the Constitution. That's a key. Put it in your pocket. You never know when that key might open a door for you. You should have as many keys in your pocket as you can hold."
Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the U.S., and that growth is reflected in America's public schools. Fifty million students attend public schools. About 20 percent of public school students—10 million children—are Hispanics. Moreover, according to the U.S. Census, one out of every four kindergarten students in the U.S. today is Latino. That means in 12 years (16, counting college), 25 percent of the national workforce will be Latino. These students will grow up to pay taxes, raise families, vote, run for office and run businesses.
"The success or failure of 25 percent of America cannot be ignored," said Eskelsen. "No country can withstand that rate of failure. If America marginalizes our Latino community, we do so at the entire country's peril. The rest of the country cannot advance economically, politically, or globally if we leave 25 percent of us underemployed and undereducated."
Keenly aware of the role great teachers and great schools play in preparing students, NEA is committing $6 million over the next six years to support quality teaching in high-needs schools. The commitment is part of an initiative, launched in partnership with the Center for Teaching Quality, to break ground for new teaching policies and strategic partnerships. The centerpiece of the initiative is a report titled, "Children of Poverty Deserve Great Teachers: One Union's Commitment to Changing the Status Quo." The report is a compilation of conversations with more than 2,000 of the nation's best teachers who shared what will attract and keep the most effective teachers in the nation's most challenging schools.
Eskelsen's remarks also kicked off Hispanic Awareness Month. To mark the month-long celebration and to help educators learn more about Hispanic history, culture and education, NEA has put together the following resources:
• Lesson plans to help celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month www.nea.org/tools/13900.htm
• A list of resources for learning more about Hispanic history, culture, and education www.nea.org/home/16772.htm
• Hispanic education issues, scholarships, and other online resources www.nea.org/home/15648.htm
• Learn how NEA's Minority Community Outreach project is working with the Hispanic community www.nea.org/home/15424.htm
For additional information, please visit www.nea.org.
# # #
The National Education Association is the nation's largest professional organization, representing
3.2 million elementary and secondary teachers, higher education faculty, education support professionals, school administrators, retired educators and students preparing to become teachers.
CONTACT: Miguel A. Gonzalez
(202) 822-7823, email@example.com


text:
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- James Broadhurst, Penn State trustee and chairman of the board's Committee on Governance and Long-Range Planning, testified before the Pennsylvania Senate State Government Committee on March 18. The hearing was convened to allow senators to examine changes that already have taken place at the University and explore further potential improvements to the University's system of governance. Joining Mr. Broadhurst at the witness table were Board Chair Keith Masser, and Trustee Ira Lubert.
The full text of Broadhurst's testimony is available on Penn State's news website.
"Today I would like to share with you the measures we have undertaken since early 2012, and those we expect to adopt this May, which respond to most of the critiques and criticisms of our governance structure that we, through self-examination over the past 16 months, and others, have identified," Broadhurst said. "I can say unequivocally that we have accepted the criticisms and suggestions from all quarters as serious contributions to our review and analysis, and while not accepting all, have adopted or will adopt many recommendations that have originated from outside the University."
In his testimony, Broadhurst cited significant changes adopted by the board within the last year, including:
-- The addition of three new committees, for a total of six, providing for greater oversight and engagement by trustees, and expansion of membership of certain committees to include faculty, staff and student representation;
-- Key staff positions, including general counsel and directors of internal audit and compliance, now report to the president and the board;
-- Refinements to term limits; and
-- increased opportunities for public participation and engagement in meetings of the board and its committees.
The board's Committee on Governance and Long-Range Planning also has recommended to the full board a redefinition of the University president's duties and changing the status of the president and Pennsylvania's governor to be ex-officio, nonvoting members of the board, among other recommendations to be voted upon by the full board in May.
"With these collective changes, practically all of the Auditor General's recommendations and to the extent that they relate to the University's organizational documents, the Freeh Group's recommendations, have been dealt with in whole or in part," Broadhurst said. The committee also is considering recommendations made this month by Penn State's Faculty Senate Special Committee on University Governance. He said the process of reform will continue; the board is constantly evolving in its work to provide the best possible governance structure for the University.
Broadhurst said that while there is no best practice or optimal size of a university board of trustees across the nation, Penn State's board is similar in size to those of other public research universities in Pennsylvania.
"Our board has the added benefit of greater alumni representation and variety of membership reflective of the Commonwealth's interests," Broadhurst said. "We see this high degree of membership variety and alumni involvement as one of our greatest strengths as a board, and recommend that any additional changes be made only after much further consideration."
Legislators have said the meeting will be the first in a series of hearings examining the governance of state-related universities. Future hearings will explore the boards of trustees at Lincoln University, the University of Pittsburgh and Temple University.


text:
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Changes At SPEED Expected To Continue
We have recently been talking about the changes SPEED has been going through since FOX Sports Chairman David Hill, pictured above, was put directly in charge of the cable TV network.
Hill's first attempt at a new Monday night line-up went down in flames. Michael Waltrip's amateur talent show, Jimmy Spencer's junkyard rants and a rehashing of NASCAR in a Hurry were eventually cancelled.
The lack of Monday through Thursday NASCAR programming on SPEED has been the hot topic for many years. Depending on who was in charge at the network, there has either been little or no effort put into creating original weekday NASCAR programs.
TV viewers who have seen Stealth Rider, Intersections or Battle of the Supercars know the current reality of SPEED all too well. Memories of former TV series like Beyond the Wheel, NBS 24/7 and This Week in NASCAR show a network that has been all over the map in terms of programming themes and genres.
Hill successfully began to make his mark at SPEED when he coordinated the Hall of Fame coverage by bringing in top-flight producers from Los Angeles. Suddenly, everyone at SPEED stepped things up a notch as it became clear this was not the good old boy approach fans had seen for years.
A short time ago, Hill made another major programming move. He decided to revamp Race Hub and make it a flagship news and interview series. He persuaded Steve Byrnes to come off the road and into the studio as the fulltime host. The show was expanded to one hour in length, a new studio set was created and a fulltime field reporter was hired.
SPEED finally had a solid weekday NASCAR presence that made sense. The production staff is only into week two and the changes have already paid dividends. Monday, Byrnes had Kyle Busch in studio for an extended interview that covered lots of topics and let fans see a very different side of this controversial driver.
While SPEED can create its own studio shows, it must purchase other NASCAR programming from the NASCAR Media Group (NMG). This downtown Charlotte company already produces the programming from the SPEED Stage as well as Race in 60 and NASCAR Hot Wired. NMG controls all NASCAR footage.
Hill's new agenda has to ultimately include exploring a merger between SPEED and NMG. A partnership would finally put these two rival fraternities on the same team. NMG would have direct access to an already successful cable TV network while SPEED would get the keys to the NMG footage vault, a treasure chest of historic NASCAR content.
Remember, SPEED was originally moved from Stamford, CT to Charlotte, NC in order to become a fulltime NASCAR TV network in a partnership between NASCAR and FOX. Those plans never worked out, but changes in management at both companies may now have set those wheels in motion again.
This is a critical time for both parties. NASCAR needs a very different television companion than the sporadic weekday coverage in place for the past three seasons. SPEED needs to shake the bipolar rap of catering to race fans on the weekends and teenagers on the week nights.
However Hill and NASCAR work it out, look for substantive changes at SPEED where NASCAR programming is concerned to continue at a rapid clip. Don't be surprised if a 24 hour fulltime NASCAR TV network is in the future. The very near future.
We welcome your comments on this topic. To add your opinion, just click on the comments button below. This is a family-friendly website, please keep that in mind when posting. Thanks for taking the time to stop by The Daly Planet.
22 comments:
- West Coast Diane said...
That's all well and good. But what about fixing the broadcasts of the races. If you lose people on the races, they certainly won't waste their time on support shows.
- August 24, 2010 at 1:02 AM
- Anonymous said...
I like the expanded "Race Hub" ... But, I wish it would actually air live and they could catch the late breaking stories as a lot of stuff breaks in the late afternoon ... I still don't like Danielle Trotta (too softball & sounds like someone's feeding her Q&A because she doesn't know the subject) ...
I didn't watch "Race Hub" today as I didn't want to see anymore of Kylie ... I skipped some of the shows when they did the "hometown tour" week as I don't like some of the teams ...
IF there is to be a NASCAR Channel, it's got to be on the lower tier or they're gonna miss a LOT of possible viewers ...
And it's been very obvious since Road America that either SPEED needs to take on more of the tv coverage ... A brand new track (well, one they hadn't been to in over 40yrs) and all we got was the race ... I remember when the Busch series went to Mexico City and News Corp blew out all of the stops and covered practices / qualifying / race ... Then Disney aired it all too ... Now, we're lucky if we get qualifying ...
Same thing goes with SPEED and the Truck series ... It's hard to get "into" a race / the series when all you get is the pre-race and the race ... It's not the way to build the fan base for the series or the drivers ... It's also NOT the way to get more sponsors into any of the series when they don't have the possibility to get the most airtime for their buck ...
Shows like NBS: 24/7 and NASCAR Drivers: 360 need to come back ... It was a way for fans to learn more about the drivers on & off the track ... It also showed us "why" drivers may have run well or poorly at a certain track ... Right now, you've got to have Trackpass to find out some of that stuff ... Even the team press releases don't give you the full details ...
More tv time is always a GOOD thing !!
- August 24, 2010 at 1:10 AM
- Chadderbox said...
Race Hub was very good on Monday! I like the changes that are being made and I feel they are trying to get it right.
It looks and feels like a better show than it was just 90 days ago.
I am excited to hear that SPEED it cranking it up another notch for Nascar!
- August 24, 2010 at 7:46 AM
- 51 yr. fan said...
Race Hub continues to improve it's
quality through it's personal touch
with people other than just drivers. It's 7PM time is perfect for after dinner viewing; unlike
the "catch me if you can" NASCAR
NOW (or maybe later).
- August 24, 2010 at 9:25 AM
- Anonymous said...
I remember when SPEED first came on the air as Speed Vision. I rarely flipped the channel. The more it became the voice of NASCAR, the less it covered some of the other great events around our country. Gone are the sprint car races at Williams Grove, USAC Sprint and Midget action on the dirt, and other gems. Speed is to NASCAR what FOX is to the Republican Party. I may watch occasionally, but it is no longer "must see tv."
- August 24, 2010 at 10:08 AM
- GinaV24 said...
Certainly putting Steve in at Race Hub is a good start. I like the newly revamped show. I am not a Kyle Busch fan by any means, but I made myself sit down and watch the interview that he did with Steve and although I probably won't change my opinion of Kyle, it was a well done interview.
I can't say that the stuff that Danielle has done so far on RaceHub impresses me much, hopefully that will improve as she gets more comfortable.
the shows I really miss are the ones you mention -- Beyond the wheel, NBS 24/7 - I don't enjoy the so called lifestyle programming like pinks and Speed's version of the gong show. I don't watch the Big Brother, Bachelor and other reality type shows on other stations either, so it's not just a Speed thing, it simply doesn't appeal to me.
I know what I'm looking for and on Speed - I would like to see more racing -- all different kinds. I really miss the world rally series. Sometimes I remember its on another channel, but man, I miss being able to find it on Speed.
Speed was THE place for me to come to get real racing information and I've missed that. I hope that David Hill will take that into consideration as he works to "change" Speed.
- August 24, 2010 at 10:50 AM
- Anonymous said...
I've been critical of Byrnes in the past regarding Twin where he didn't appear to have control of the show. He's been very good the last few weeks on Race Hub-serious,focused and disciplined about what his responsibilities as a host are. Trying to be tactful here,but the problem with many TV "reporters" covering Nascar is that they don't know anything about driving or the technical aspects of a Nascar racecar. Frankly,some of the things they say are kinda silly.
- August 24, 2010 at 11:58 AM
- Anonymous said...
@Anon 10:08 am - Thank you sometimes I felt I was wrong that SPEED was originally Speed Vision.
Race Hub is now the show I set my DVR to record. Monday was a great show - Kyle is not & ever will be my "favorite", but give him credit. He can drive, & Steve did a great show.
I wasn't sure about Steve B coming off the road, but I'm liking this show a lot. And I don't have to search for it. The new set & 1 hour really make the difference.
- August 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM
- Donna DeBoer said...
Overall, I'm less interested in racing "talk shows" than I am in actual racing. I would like to see SPEED carry more LIVE races of all disciplines & leagues, along with more NASCAR divisions.
The NASCAR Channel: can't wait til 2014!!
- August 24, 2010 at 12:21 PM
- Wisconsin Steve said...
The best NASCAR program Speed ever had was Pit Bull. I know they will never bring it back because it was too controversial but it would be nice if Race Hub created a panel of journalists/writers for a weekly segment that resembles it. It might help Speed get away from its recent habit of avoiding serious racing issues like the drug-testing policy.
- August 24, 2010 at 12:33 PM
- Theodore said...
A 24/7 NASCAR Network would be a good thing if only because it might allow for a revival of the old SpeedVision we knew and loved.
- August 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM
- Anonymous said...
"Don't be surprised if a 24 hour fulltime NASCAR TV network is in the future. The very near future."
Why JD do you always talk in these "Hints"?? If you actually have information, then just say it...if not, stop the game of "teases" to push traffic.
Or is this just wishful thinking...
- August 24, 2010 at 5:30 PM
- Daly Planet Editor said...
Teases to push traffic? Obviously...for all the ads on the blog. right?
When Mr. Hill and NASCAR get down to business, whatever develops will get reported right here.
I think the clock is ticking very loudly.
- August 24, 2010 at 5:36 PM
- Darcie said...
The Monday Nascar Now is the only Nascar show I watch. The panel on that one hour show is the best of them all. Their insight on the week's racing is unlike anything else. Speed has become an non-entity for me. I no longer watch Race Day, Trackside (the crowd noise prohibits me from enjoying that show), Victory Lane or anything else on Speed. Their foray into reality land made no sense with their shows on wrecker drivers and the rest. One hopes in the future that Speed brings on shows that focus on the drivers and teams off the track as well as on.
- August 24, 2010 at 6:39 PM
- glenc1 said...
you know, trying to be objective...I don't watch ALL racing. I watch anything NASCAR. I watch the IRL but I don't have VS so I listen online if it's not on ABC. I watch Grand Am and some F1. I just am not into motorcycles and I just don't find time to watch K&N or other series. But I have to say, that, in my mind, is what speed ought to be. It should be showing racing...off road, rally, etc. But I did enjoy the old shows (NBS, Beyond, etc..) Want to see them do all qualifying, practice. But fixing the Fox actual race product is number one.
- August 24, 2010 at 8:44 PM
- Tracy D said...
If only they'd return to programing like NBS 24/7, etc. Wishful thinking, I know.
In this day of political-correctness-or-the-Nascar-powers-will-lop-off-your-head (metaphorically), I doubt we'll see anything substantial in the way of reporting about the sport, even if Speed goes Nascar 24-7.
Those wide-open days are long gone, I fear, when reporters will do a Dustin Long and get the real info from Larry Mac, Kyle Petty, etc.
Byrnes does a good job on Hub. Like the new set, the more professional "vibe." But the show has a very controlled feel now, much like NN. I know it's a necessary evil, the script, but sheesh, I still laugh at the memory of some of Schrader's retorts to Michael Waltrip on INC. And the stories. . .
We won't get anything like that now. So who cares if Speed changes its format to Nascar 24/7?
- August 24, 2010 at 9:05 PM
- earl06 said...
SPEED has a lot of wounds to heal if they want to regain the status they had 6 or 7 years ago. A part of my love for NASCAR died when they replaced Ralph Sheheen and Krista Voda with the Three Stooges on NASCAR Nation back in the day. Then IWC/INC was purged and another pile of suck was born. Then NBS 24/7 and the other NI shows were canceled...
I have seen RaceDay go from a laughable tragedy with Chad Little and Barry Dodson to a train wreck with DW and Kenny. Still just as bad, but much louder now. At least Chad and Barry didn't scream condescendingly about things they knew nothing about.
I have gone from watching SPEED a few hours a day to canceling cable and watching it never.
If SPEED (and the other networks for that matter) wants to get viewers interested in what they have to offer, they need to keep it fresh. Get rid of the dead weight and start treating their airtime like it's precious. Make it look like someone tried to make a good show that day instead of mailing it in.
Redundant, trite garbage has killed the coverage of this sport, someone needs to try and change that.
- August 24, 2010 at 9:15 PM
- Anonymous said...
Ditto to the comments that if they don't FIX the BROADCASTS of the racing (i.e. wide camera shots to SHOW US the race as opposed to tight shows to show off the zoom cams/bumper cams crap.
NASCAR channel won't mean bleep if it's not on BASIC CABLE for all to see. also cable companies fight over what to carry (MLB & NFL junk comes to mind)
What good is NASCAR Ch 24/7 if many will not SEE if for another 5 years. Lunacy.
Steve is a good host on NH & I am glad he is home. Still don't like the chick on there. sorry
- August 24, 2010 at 9:26 PM
- Rocky in NC said...
Race Hub never has done anything for me. Nascar Now is on at 5 and has much better content. They report news and rumors. What little ive watched of Race Hub is mostly interviews.
I say this with no ill-will towards speed at all, but it doesnt matter what speed shows im still gonna watch TBS every night. You cant beat reruns of the office or family guy.
I would consider changing that view if the afore mentioned Nascar Drivers 360 was brought back. That show was awesome and went behind the scenes like others wish. Also if they had an automotive reality show (i.e. American Chopper or American Hot Rod, not Fast Track To Fame) it would potientially be a huge hit for the network. The problem with Speed is its not attractive to anyone outside of racing. A show like that would satisfy that need and not tick off the hardcore race fans either.
Personally the only show worth watching on the current prime time lineup is Intersections. Thats a pretty cool show. and of course Pinks All Out.
Time and time again Speed tries and fails in the prime time department, but as far as im concerned as long as they still carry practice and qualifying, Speed will live on.
Also JD I have a question: With Fox now broadcasting sports in widescreen for SD viewers like myself, is this coming to Nascar on Fox/Speed next year? I sure hope not. A change of graphis is over due but you cant see the graphis on a screen that small
- August 24, 2010 at 9:47 PM
- Rocky in NC said...
Oh and one more thing, as far as a future Nascar Channel goes, I sure hope its not owned/controlled by Nascar. There are 2 sides to every story, im afraid all we would here is Nascars side
- August 24, 2010 at 9:50 PM
- Anonymous said...
Curious pair of guests on Trackside from Bristol. Retired driver seriously injured in wreck at Bristol in March apparently having trouble paying his medical expenses and billionaire majority owner of SMI and Bristol track who reportedly just spent about $500,000 on PR event at Texas track- neither one of whom was asked about nor referred to the other.
- August 25, 2010 at 1:14 AM
- racingfool said...
Here my guess of the NASCAR Media Group/Fox/Speed Dream Sprint Cup Race Announce Team:
Brad Daugherty
Rusty Wallace
Krista Vota
Rick Allan
Put out to the Speed pasture:
Jeff Hammond
Alan Bestwick
Mike Joy
What do you all think?
- August 25, 2010 at 12:51 PM


text:
Painting Company in Austin
Painting Contractor serving the Austin, Lakeway, Dripping Springs, Driftwood, West Lake Hills and Austin areas
If you'd like to have the best painters in Austin, Lakeway, Dripping Springs, Driftwood, West Lake Hills and surrounding areas paint your house, give Matchless Interior Painting a call today. We work hard to ensure that we exceed all customer expectations. With every painting project, we strive to be considered the best painters in Austin, TX, and the surrounding area. But don't just take our word for it, read our house painting reviews below and see what our customers have to say.
This review is a few years over due, but Jeff deserves the 5 stars. We had him come paint a few rooms in our house a few days before we moved in. He was very quick and was able to finish a few hours early. His work is also very clean - he did a good job painting and ensured that his team did not leave a mess in the house. He even made some great suggestions on how to paint accents in our baby room. I'd definitely use him again.Kat A.
Jeff and his team did an outstanding job painting the interior of my house. We are still getting comments about how awesome it looks. Jeff is very hands on, making sure to pay attention to every detail. He is very conscientious about the quality of work that his company provides. They even came back to do touch ups the next day and that made the entire place look even better! Jose and Eloy did very neat work, didn't mess up my floors or anything, and were left in my home all day--with no incident. They swept my floor and locked up for me! I highly recommend Matchless Interior Painting for any of your household painting needs. I can't wait to have them back in the future.Iffy S.
My wife got in touch with Jeff regarding a couple rooms worth of painting at our new house. He gave an initial quote over the phone, but was more than willing to work around our schedules to come by and give a more accurate number (we had a couple of rooms we wanted non-standard stuff, like blocking done). The pricing was competitive with a few other places we looked at. I think we called on Monday and they were painting by Thurs. We were secretly hoping to find someone that could get it done before Saturday, since we were moving in (so he scored bonus points with us). They were short a man on Thursday, but due to our extra stuff, it was going to take two days anyways. The crew (including Jeff) did a good job of policing splotches / drips. I think I have one tiny touch up I have to do (my wife would tell you I'm OCD and no one else would notice). I would use Jeff and Matchless Interior Painting in the future.David A.
Jason and his team worked tirelessly to make sure that the house was done to the highest standards with a warm feeling of home. His professionalism and courtesy are unsurpassed and it was a pleasure to work with him throughout the project. We highly recommend him to any and all homeowners, especially us first timers!Anna M.
My wife and I painted most of our place ourselves, but for the hard to reach places on our second story, we decided to give Jeff at Matchless a call. Jeff was responsive, and his painters did a great job. We also decided to have some popcorn removed from our ceiling while they were up there, and the subcontractor he used for the popcorn was equally professional and courteous. The prices were reasonable, too. We're considering using them again for removing the rest of our popcorn and painting the ceilings. Thanks a ton, Jeff!Billy K.
Jeff and his team did an incredible job with our house. We only had about a week timeframe before we were moving in and they came in and painted a 3br/2ba 1300 sq ft home in 4 days and it looked brand new. We asked them to paint some accent walls and they did a brilliant job with the design. We highly recommend them and look forward to using them again in the future.Shelby K.
Awesome experience with Jeff! He gave a better estimate than anyone else who came by, beat them on price by a mile, and did wonderful work. I would hire him again in a heartbeat! Thanks!Jason D.
Jeff & his crew did a great job on my daughter's bedroom & bathroom! Will definitely be using them all the time for any painting needs!Amber M.
These guys are incredible! Jeff was super helpful, very affordable, and his crew had a great eye for detail. We'll definitely book them again soon.Steve P.
Jeff and his team were amazing. Very professional, fast, and communicative. I have had them work on a residential project and 2 commercial projects, all with very very fast and late notice timelines. True professionals and I Would highly recommend this team to anyone! They never disappoint!Jennifer T.
Jeff and his crew painted my home last year and they did an excellent job. Jeff was honest about timing, expectation and level of service. His crew was very respectful and courteous. They were in my home painting every wall, ceiling, door and trim. They had to paint a lighter color over a much darker color and they were very particular about getting it done right. I like clean lines on creases and trim and that was done expertly. I have recommended Jeff to many friends and clients because of his and his crew's service. Job well done!Helen M.
I have worked with Jeff on several jobs. As an Interior Designer, the subcontractors I use can make or break the project. My subcontractors represent me. Jeff and his team have never let me down. In fact a few time I have had Matchless come in and clean up jobs that my clients original painters had buggered up. With painting it's all in the prep, Matchless understands that. Matchless has always shown up when they say they will be there and finished when they say they will be done. Again, in my line of work that's just as important as the quality of the work. Fortunately for me they bring the quality in there work as well. I look forward to working with Jeff and his team on many more projects to come and would recommend them to others who expect the same level of work that I do.Chris M.
Jeff painted our "new to us" home from top to bottom. We had him do the ceilings, trim, doors, built ins and kitchen cabinets. We are extremely pleased with the job he did. He and his entire team were professional, prompt, detail oriented and helpful. If I had a concern, he was very kind and receptive about getting it taken care of. He also took it upon himself to try and work with our tile guy to try and shave a few days off our remodel process. The kitchen cabinets he painted had a few defective hinges, and he found exact replacements after visiting several stores throughout the Austin area. I can't say enough about the job he did and I will gladly use him again in the future.Marie P.
I have worked with this company in several projects. Their work is always impeccable & top-notch. The crew is always professional, polite and the communication is fast and reliable. Their rates are extremely competitive as well!Maureen Stevens Design
Jeff was courteous, and on time. We dealt through emails, phone calls and personally. All methods were fast and precise. We had two bedrooms and two baths painted in our home. One bedroom was a dark blue. They primed it and did a good job covering the prior paint. We thought that it would take a couple of days, but he and his crew did it all in one day. They even moved all of the furniture back for us. We heard about Matchless through our neighborhood Facebook page. I highly recommend the company.L Austin.
Matchless was great for us. We used them to repaint some of the rooms in the house we purchased. Even when I realized that the color I had chosen ultimately needed to be modified mid-way through, they were understanding and were helpful in re-working through it and meeting the time deadlines with a fair negotiation for price alterations. We will use Matchless again in the future for future painting needs. I also liked the fact that they were knowledgeable about the no-VOC paints.Amanda W.
Painless from start to finish. Jeff gave us a quote right away, we set a date, and the team arrived as scheduled. They took care of and protected all our belongings, including the piano, cleaned up after themselves, and did a beautiful job. Reliable, no-nonsense service.Dana N.
Jeff and his crew were great! We have employed them twice. The first job was to pain two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The last job they did for us was painting a bedroom with an accent wall. They are quick, tidy, reasonable, and polite. They were on time for both jobs and done in a day. I highly recommend them.Laurie W.
Jeff and his crew do terrific work at fantastic prices, what more could you want from a contractor? They communicate well, too. We've used them several times in the past including a job last weekend, and we will use them again in the very near future. I cannot recommend this contractor more highly. If you have an interior painting job, get a quote from Jeff, you'll be very glad you did.Rick M.
If you want a painting job done well and priced reasonably, there is no one I could recommend more highly than Jeff from Matchless. When I contacted him about an estimate for our condo, he was very flexible in his time for coming by. He worked around my floor guy's schedule and was there until late one night so he could finish up. He did our walls, cabinets and wood around doors. No mess to clean up afterwards, either. Very professional and one of my best contractor experiences ever.Anonymous
Jeff and his team worked on a painting project in my house earlier this summer. This was a big size project as we were painting the entire living area, ceiling, dining area, half-bathroom , master bedroom and master bathroom (first floor) and game room and the guest bathroom (second floor). There were a few things which made this project challenging: Our home has high ceiling (20 ft) and there was wall-paper in the kitchen , dining area, master bathroom and the guest bathrooms. Many painters do not bother removing the wallpaper and instead just paint over them. Jeff and his team showed a lot of patience in getting the wallpaper out and preparing the surface (texture) before painting those areas. The entire project lasted eight days - The team showed up on time every single day. All the painters were very polite, respectful and professional. We are very happy with their work and will recommend Matchless painting wholeheartedly to all our friends.Vish M.
We hired Jeff based on his great reviews and we're not disappointed. His prices were competitive with other quotes. Jeff and his co-worker showed up on time, we're courteous and did a great job. We hired him again to paint our garage and do an epoxy floor. We plan on calling him again for any of our future projects.Michelle P.
Very nice, very prompt. Cleaned up after words beautifully. Took a bit longer than anticipated but a lovely job and would certainly consider Matchless for my next project.Jayme
Jeff, Drew, Craig and Josh did an awesome job painting my entire condo for a very fair price. Cheaper than painters recommended by friends. They went above and beyond just painting... such as new trim, power washing, removal of built in shelving and did it in 4 days. I'm very pleased. I recommend Matchless.Celeste B.
Jeff and his crew have painted parts of our house many times. They perform really high quality work for a very reasonable price. He's painted our entire downstairs, twice, including our Master bedroom and bath, living room, stairwell, dining room, and family room. And a few hallways connecting it all. We also had his crew do some drywall work while they were there, and it looks really good. I highly recommend him!Joe D.
They are one of the best.. very clean job. He is a perfectionist.Joann F.
Matchless Interior Painting can help you improve the look of your home at a fraction of the time that it would take you to do it yourself and at a very reasonable price. We'll work closely with you to understand the exact cost of painting your house right down to the smallest detail.
Get the best house painters in the Austin, TX area, and choose Matchless Interior Painting for your next house painting project. We'll make it our goal to make you so happy with our work your review will be the next positive customer review that we feature. We'll be happy to give you a free quote. Call us today at 512-850-8370, or request a free estimate using our web form.


text:
out of 674 total
out of 60 total
Each day, everyday freedoms like walking, hugging, playing and even breathing are taken away from kids and adults in our community with muscular dystrophy, ALS and related muscle-debilitating diseases.
The dollars we raise together fuel MDA's efforts to find research breakthroughs across diseases, to care for kids and adults from day one, and to empower families in hometowns across America with services and support. We can't do this without you!
The event you requested is not currently published.


text:
Real Salt Lake 2, Seattle Sounders 1 | MLS Match Recap
SANDY, Utah — Round 2 in the battle for Western Conference supremacy goes to Real Salt Lake.
On the strength of a second-half goal by Joao Plata and a Seattle own-goal created by Luis Gil and Luke Mulholland, the Claret and-Cobalt claimed a 2-1 win over Seattle and moved into first place in the West on Saturday at Rio Tinto Stadium.
The win was also a moment of vengeance for RSL (11-4-9), who suffered a humbling 4-0 loss in Seattle on May 31. Second-half substitute Chad Barrett scored his fifth goal of the season for the Sounders (13-7-2), who struggled to find the equalizer over the final 20 minutes and have now lost three of their past four league games.
RSL are now unbeaten in their past six. The two teams will play for the third and final time during the regular season on Sept. 12 in Seattle.
Lightning struck for the second time in eight days for Plata in the 53rd minute, as the 5-foot-2 forward scored his second goal on a header in as many games. On a play set up when Sounders defender Zach Scott fouled RSL forward Olmes Garcia just outside the box, Plata got behind Seattle midfielder Lamar Neagle on Mulholland's free kick and headed the ball in past Sounders goalkeeper Stefan Frei.
The goal was Plata's 11th of the season, tops on RSL and third among Western Conference forwards.
Just four minutes later, RSL doubled the lead on an own-goal on Seattle midfielder Ozzie Alonso. Gil — playing at the top of the diamond in place of the injured Javier Morales — passed the ball to a streaking Mulholland cutting into the Seattle box, but Alonso accidentally deflected the ball in just before Seattle defenders could clear the the chance off the goal line.
Seattle pulled one back in the 72nd minute when RSL defenders Chris Schuler and Chris Wingert miscommunicated on a clearance and the ball fell to Seattle's Clint Dempsey. RSL goalkeeper Nick Rimando saved Dempsey's point-blank shot, and Andy Rose hit the post on the first rebound before Barrett cleaned up the chance to inch Seattle to a 2-1 deficit.
But the Sounders never found the second goal, and are still stuck on just one win in seven regular season games all-times at Rio Tinto.
Both team had chances in the first half, but it was RSL that walked off the field at the break with a clear edge. Plata nearly scored numerous times and RSL controlled 62 percent of the possession in the first half against Seattle, who played for the second time in four days after their midweek win in the U.S. Open Cup and without suspended striker Obafemi Martins.
There's little rest for either team, with the Sounders hosting the San Jose Earthquakes on Aug. 20 before a road match against the Portland Timbers on Aug. 24, while RSL play at FC Dallas on Aug. 22.
MLSsoccer.com Men of the Match
|What We Saw
|Joao Plata
|More proof that RSL's best move of the past two seasons was to bring this guy to win balls out of the air.
|Luke Mulholland
|Went quiet in the last 20 minutes - most RSL players did - but was a revelation until then.
|Nat Borchers
|Steady as ever. Kenny Cooper never made a peep, and Borchers' positioning was spotless.


text:
I have an app which I'm using a Mouse Hook for. It is run-of-the-mill VB mouse
hook code, but it GPFs at random when the right mouse button is pressed.
I have searched for all the simple stupid mistakes that I could have made
(eg accidentally using byref instead of byval etc) and have found none.
The candidate I see most likely is the stopping of the mouse hook. When the
user clicks the right mouse button the active form is unloaded and the hook
stopped. So is it possible to stop a mouse hook in the MouseProc? When I
stop it the callNextHookEx is not called as it has been killed. Could this
be causing the GPF?
Thanks in advance
Michael Culley


text:
Pakistani Chat Rooms Without Registration
Looking Free Pakistani Chat Rooms Without Registration ??? PakistaniCorner Free Online Chat Rooms Without Any Registration PakistaniCorner Free Online Chat Rooms Free Online Chatting With Girls And Boys gschatroom Provides You Best Online Web Radio And Free Online Chat Room Without Registration gschatroom Chat Room Is A World Best Chatting And Dating Website In Internet World you can discover a huge number of individuals in Pakistani talk make companions around the entire World.
PakistaniCorner This the best place where you can chat with peoples online around the world free. !! online chat room without registration is free of cost chatting website and also no need to register yourself. Just pick a nick and start to chat with thousands of peoples all around the world….. Wishing you a very warm WELCOME to Online Pakistani room. We Love Our All Members It's Great To Have You With Us Enjoy Your Stay In Peace Full Environment
PakistaniCorner Stranger Chat Rooms Without Registration
Stranger chat is being very common now a days. People who this is a very less social and have less communication skills may take help of stranger chat in order to improve their talking efficiency via chat. The best part of stranger chatting is that you dont have to be ashamed of sharing anything on this chatting plateform coz know body knows who is chatting and you will be anonymous/stranger.
Another part of stranger chat is that you can meet you dream person may be here on this talk to stranger website. Just talk/chat as long as you want being as stranger and if you think there is no need to chat as a stranger now you can share your information on the same stranger chating platform.
Another best part of the stranger chat plateform is that here you could judge people for days. Meanwhile you could talk to same stranger for many days week or months untill you will know this strager is a good and best fit for you. This talk to stranger website give you a temperory id so that you could chat with same stranger and connect with same stranger as many times as you want.
Its up to you you want to make account or not on this chat with stranger website. Making account on thes stranger chat website is really easy. You wont take more than 30 seconds to mmake an account on the talk to stranger website.
Webcam Chat Rooms Without Registration
Here you can find random live video chats as well as text chat rooms which make it similar to Omegle and other video chat services but gschatroom takes goes one step further. After the randomness, you are offered a free online dating or friend finder social network.
This is one of the fastest growing sites of this kind with over a thousand new members joining every day. Whether you are looking for dates or just trying out your lines before you jump back into the dating pool, this is a close as you can get to practicing face to face.
gschatroom is still a random video chat site but with its 24/7 team of moderators, they are keeping it clean and staying on course with its vision of a site where those under 18 can enjoy chatting with people in a safe environment and protected from adult behavior, as well as a site for adults to connect on special interests rather than sexual proclivity.


text:
About Zebra
The Edge You Need to Succeed
Zebra empowers those on the front line in retail, healthcare, transportation and logistics, manufacturing and other industries to achieve a performance edge - an edge that translates to delighted customers, good patient outcomes and superior business results.
As the pioneer at the edge of the enterprise, our products, software, services, analytics and solutions are used to intelligently connect your people, assets and data. With decades of industry experience, we design with front-line users and workplaces in mind, giving you the best-action guidance needed to optimise in-motion operations and make business-critical decisions.
With over 10,000 partners across 100 countries, we are committed to delivering industry-tailored solutions that help our customers capture their edge.
Year Founded: 1969
Channel Partners: 10,000+
Employees: ∼7,400
Patents: 4,400+
Global Sales 2018: $4.22B USD
Global Offices: 100+ in 45 countries
Zebra Portfolio: Barcode Printing, Mobile Computing, Data Capture, Locationing, Data Platforms, Software, Services, Supplies
Vision and Leadership
"We are living in an on-demand economy where organisations must digitise their operations to compete. The pace of change is accelerating. We are the pioneers at the edge of the enterprise and we are investing in innovations to empower front-line performance so brands can deliver differentiated service and care to thrive into the future."
- Anders Gustafsson Chief Executive Officer
1969: Founded as Data Specialties by Ed Kaplan and Gary Cless
1982: First barcode printer
1986: First thermal printer for on-demand barcode labelling; changed company name to Zebra Technologies
1991: First laser-scannable two-dimensional barcode; initial public offering (NASDAQ-ZBRA)
1997: First wearable computer
1998: Merged with Eltron International, a provider of desktop and photo ID card printers
2000: Acquired Comtec Information Systems, a provider of wireless mobile printers
2004: First rugged RFID handheld; first enterprise Digital Assistant
2007: Anders Gustafsson appointed CEO; acquired WhereNet player tracking
2008: First mobile RFID printing solutions
2013: Introduced Zebra Sports solution; acquired Hart Systems; first IoT platform for enterprise; first smart environment for thermal printers (Link-OS)
2014: Announced agreement to purchase the Motorola Solutions' Enterprise Business
2015: New brand as combined company; acquired ITR Mobility (iFactr); only migration path to modern OS for legacy Windows applications
2016: First all-touch Android inventory solution
2017: Introduced breakthrough Zebra Savanna data intelligence platform; Collaboration with NFL and Wilson Sporting Goods to track players and game footballs
As the pioneer at the edge of the enterprise, Zebra Technologies serves thousands of customers including many of the world's top companies. We build and deliver edge technologies that enable businesses to intelligently connect assets, data, and people. We are pleased to receive industry recognition for our efforts.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Giving Back with the Gift of Education
Our support of Bernie's Book Bank expands our engagement in education while helping local communities where we live and work.
Zebra Technologies' Focus on Corporate Social Responsibility
At Zebra, our Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities include operating our business in an ethical manner, protecting the environment through the eco-friendly design and manufacturing of our products and solutions, and the adoption of sustainable measures in our services and supply chain operations. We also engage and invest in the communities where we live and work. We invite you to learn more about our progress.
Bring Your Performance Edge to Zebra
You are hardworking, brave, and bold. You are an innovator with creative ideas. You are looking for a place to bring your unique edge, while getting the opportunity to sharpen it. You should apply for a role at Zebra.
Success requires more than just desire. It demands a performance edge, and Zebra empowers you to reach out and capture it. We are looking for team members who work hard to focus their unique talents while collaborating to reach a shared goal. We want those who appreciate being empowered and are brave enough to embrace it. We want people to boldly build something never before thought possible, but do it in a way that stays true to the spirit of Zebra.
It's an exciting time to be at Zebra, and we hope you'll contact us about areas where you can make a difference as we transform the world to be better, faster, smarter. Apply today.
Featured Press Release
Zebra Study: Only Two in 10 Consumers Have Complete Confidence Their Food is Safe to Eat
On average less than 40 percent of food and beverage industry decision-makers place complete trust in the industry to ensure food and beverage safety.
Global , Manufacturing , Retail , Warehouse
Corporate and International Headquarters
Zebra Technologies Corporation
Corporate and International Headquarters
3 Overlook Point Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069 USA
Phone: +1 847 634 6700
Toll-free: +1 866 230 9494
Fax: +1 847 913 8766