That's what GE is calling for, and in the not-too-distant future. Check out this article. They figure solar will be less expensive than fossil fuel in about five years. Maybe sooner. If things keep going the way they're going, this will make the Chinese very happy!

Here's a provocative article for you to chomp on. Thanks to subscriber, John Ackerly, for the heads-up. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Our friends in Regina, Canada get to look at this power plant, which is often mistaken for a church. It just won an award, and I'd say it deserves it. And look at how long this one's been around! Hey, I remember 1967. Or I think I do.

Subscriber, Mike Sommer, who never disappoints, gave me a heads-up about this article, which describes a situation most of us don't have to face every day. Imagine sitting on the throne when a feral camel gets thirsty. You can't make this stuff up.

Sure, it's in Greenwich Village, NY, and you shouldn't be overweight if you're thinking about buying it, but hey, what do expect for a couple of million bucks? Take a look.

Stop climbing rocks and start climbing wind turbines. As more of those huge pinwheels sprout across the land a new sort of work will come along with it. There's opportunity everywhere, my friend. You just have to keep your eyes open for it.

Subscriber, Mark Miller of Central Boiler, put me on to this one and I am so glad he did. The author holds a PhD, but chooses to work as a motorcycle mechanic rather than at his former job, which was in a think tank. His exploration of the meaning of work is especially touching nowadays as America exports its once-safe office jobs to other places. Mr. Crawford is a philosopher with grease under his nails. This is an important book and I urge you to read it.

After last week's lead story in this newsletter I got an e-mail from Jodi Smits Anderson, which I thought was passionate and wonderful. I asked her permission to share it with you and here it is. Thanks, Jodi!

"I appreciate the articles about 'Is green breaking a promise,' but I do have a problem with how these cases are presented in the articles and with your title in your newsletter. In both cases, the 'green' being discussed is only energy or, in NZ, energy and water. So - talk about energy efficiency and water efficiency, please don't label these as failing to be  'green' or sustainable. True green takes into account air quality, health of occupants, low-toxin materials, resource stewardship (local, recycled or rapidly renewable) site placement and controls, community issues, as well as energy and water. So, in their green performance, were they only falling short of the mark on energy and water? How were they performing across the board? Were they wall planned, usable spaces with good daylighting controls and harvesting? How is the air quality? What relationship to local transport and local job creation did they have and do they continue to have? Green is MUCH more than one or even two things. In addition, the articles quote how much 'extra' was spent - but extra over what? Over a code rated building with low-end finishes and systems? Or against a well designed building meeting all the needs of the owner, including durability goals, operational goals and pleasant, usable spaces  - and if this is the case, what discreet items can be 'pulled out' that are green? True green is, again, not only one or two things but also full integration of thoughts goals into the program, systems, design approaches, construction and operations of the buildings. Representing green as anything that costs more is entirely missing the point. If they 'added costs' it is because they saw a value in a particular decision, something that would benefit the building, program and occupants, and that value is certainly linked to green but the same can be said of choosing marble wainscoting in a lobby - it is part of deciding what is important, what is a priority over other things, and what has value to the project. The failure in these articles is in not representing the process and the decisions that were made, only looking at an end metric with no basis in reality.  Finally, did these buildings truly 'fail' in energy use and water use? Or did they just do less good than predicted, but still vastly better than a building project that didn't even try to do any better than the bare minimum allowed by code?"

Hug your kids.