ChevronTexaco this week promoted its cooperation in a project in Millbrae, California that uses grease to power a wastewater treatment plant. While the company's work in alternative energy is to be commended, Chevron needs to take responsibility for the environmental damage caused by its petroleum operations.

Chevron designed the digester system which turns restaurant grease into a biogas that is used to power the microturbines that produce electricity used for the wastewater plant. Chevron says the city will save $366,000 per year, enabling the plant to pay for itself.

According to Chevron, most of the 4.2 billion pounds of waste grease generate by U.S. restaurants winds up in landfills and creates methane that is a greenhouse gas.

So my two questions are: Why is using a digester to turn waste oil into biogas better than converting the fry oil into biodiesel, and why don't we have a national policy for recycling all of this waste grease into energy? If restaurants are paying people to get rid of it, shouldn't we organize the collection of the raw materials and turn lemons into lemonade?

And now back to Chevron.

The company is also in the news this week due to litigation regarding the pollution it left in Ecuador after it was finished pumping oil out of the rainforest. Chevron is in court in San Francisco battling claims that waste water from its drilling in Ecuador gave cancer and leukemia to local residents, according to SF Weekly.

"The company separated out the oil, and discharged the water into rivers and streams, and stored other waste products in unlined, open pits. Rainforest activists from the San Francisco-based group Amazon Watch (which is not a plaintiff in the suit) claim that 18.5 billion gallons of this "produced water" was discharged during the years Texaco operated the sites, and allege that the water was laced with toxic chemicals known to cause cancer."

Chevron has spent $40 million so far in cleaning up the site, but according to the book Lives Per Gallon by Terry Tamminen, that only took care of 1/3 of the waste pits, leaving 18 million gallons of toxic oil still to be cleaned.

So before we get too caught up in the alternative energy projects that companies such as Chevron, Shell and BP are creating, they have to be held accountable for the lack of regard for sustainability in their petroleum past.

BP's Group Chief Executive Lord Browne gave a speech this week about the global energy challenges and the company's philosophy of sustainability. While it is very encouraging for an energy powerhouse to be unequivocally addressing climate change, the company must follow through on its current commitments to alternative energy and protect the environment by properly managing its fossil fuel assets.

Here are excerpts and my thoughts on his speech. (You can read the full text here).

Browne says companies don't only exist to make money -- "the purpose is to supply the goods and services which people want to buy at a cost they can afford... Business is about meeting customer needs again and again over a long period of time and building a relationship which enables the business to respond as the needs change."

"You have to examine the things which threaten the sustainability of the relationship. And in a spirit of mutual advantage you have to examine what you can do, as a business, to remove those threats. To make the relationship sustainable. To ensure one transaction leads to another, and another.

From BP's perspective, the biggest risks to sustainability are:

"The first and most important is climate change and the potential impact of hydrocarbons – including oil and gas - in increasing the level of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere and potentially creating a fundamental and irreversible shift in the world’s climate.... I believe the judgment on the science of climate change on the basis of the available evidence is now beyond reasonable contradiction.

.... To do nothing, to live in denial, to pass the problem to another generation – will increase the cost of the action and will increase the risk that the action comes too late."

These words are striking coming from a company that gets the majority of its revenue from fossil fuels.

"The second threat to sustainability is that the energy resources the world needs will cease to be available and that energy shortage, perhaps expressed in very high prices, will hinder economic growth and reduce living standards. This shortage could force us into using whatever resources are available regardless of the environmental consequences.

Sustainability is attainable. The risks are significant but there are things we can do. The complexity lies in the fact that no one player, no single part of society, can achieve sustainability by acting alone.

Browne also seems to be suggesting a carbon tax:

"Climate change for instance requires the pricing of emissions and their consequences if the right economic decisions are going to be taken."

He compares the struggle to become sustainable to fighting World War II:

"Freeing the world from tyranny and from the threat of fascism 60 years ago imposed a very high immediate cost – much higher than the 1 per cent of GDP..."

BP just announced that it will nearly double the size of its solar production plant in Frederick, MD, to 150 MW. BP will upgrade the facility through sustainable business practices, including adding roof garden, extensive water recycling, and the utilization of LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) design components.

Browne said later this year the company will announce a $500 million research project for converting biomass into ethanol.

While these are positive strides, the company has many challenges in living up to its high ideals.

Last week, a post on the Hybrid Car Blog shouted (with seven exclamation points, no less) “Stop the Madness: Hybrid Vehicles Not E85!!!!!!! which, while interesting, completely misses the point in my mind. It also, unfortunately, is an illustration of the kind of either/or thinking that risks polarizing and confusing the issues surrounding the push for alternative transportation fuels.

Allow me to explain: Hybrid Car Blog argues that ethanol "will simply lead to more flex-fuel Hummers and little decrease in foreign oil dependency." The author goes on to say that "E85 is a feel-good way of accomplishing nothing, something both Democrats and Republicans love - talk, talk, talk, but do nothing."

In reality, both E85 and hybrid technology could be used in tandem to quickly change petroleum consumption patterns globally.

For argument's sake, let's use Chevy's upcoming Tahoe Hybrid as an example. Granted, this is a big, burly SUV, but that makes it exactly the kind of conspicuous consumer of petroleum that some say are the worst part of the problem.

But check this out: If you combine the Tahoe's hybrid technology with its Flex Fuel engine, you end up with a big, burly SUV that uses less petroleum per mile than a friggin' MOPED. Better still, this isn't science ficton: you'll be able to drive one off the showroom floor in about six months

Crazy? Let's break down the numbers. Chevy's posted MPG for the gas only version of the 2007 5.3L V8 Tahoe is 17.7 MPG combined (15/21MPG at 55% city, 45% highway). Pretty ugly, so far.

On the other hand, this Tahoe is a Flex Fuel vehicle, which means you can pump E85 into it today, and it'll run just fine. When you do, however, you incur a 23% fuel consumption penalty, over running it on pure gasoline, so you end up with a combined mileage figure of 13.6 MPG.

Here's where it gets interesting: When you're running E85, you're only burning 15% petroleum (E85 is 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline). So, using our Chevy Tahoe as an example, you're only burning as much PETROLEUM as a vehicle that gets 91 MPG! And we haven't even added hybrid technology into the mix.

In the middle of next year, when Chevy releases the dual-mode hybrid version of the Tahoe, it'll get approximately 25% better mileage than the non-hybrid version. So the hybrid version, running E85, will get 17MPG, but use the equivalent amount of petroleum as a vehicle that gets 114 MPG!

In the end, shifting away from dependence on foreign oil is not going to come about because of one killer technology. Like entrepreneur Steven Johnson said in Matter's recent interview, "It is important that people realize that there will not be any single silver bullet solution to either oil supply limitations or the problem of climate change. There are, however, a lot of silver BBs."

Both hybrid technology and E85 are BBs we can employ immediately. Neither of them may be the be-all, end-all solution, but both of them, intelligently combined and applied, can play a big part in moving things in the right direction, right away.

Although we are becoming much more aware of how tailpipe emissions can make you and the planet sick, the Ecology Center is reporting on the toxicity of the materials used in vehicle interiors.

According to the Ecology Center's second annual Automotive Plastics Report,Toyota, Ford and Honda are the best of the big auto companies at limiting the use of toxic plastic materials.

The average vehicle uses 250 lbs of plastic, including chemicals such as "phthalates in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants or(BFRs). "

Although the study says things are improving, the auto industry's report card looks a bit like Bart Simpson's:

Toyota C+, Ford C, Honda C, DaimlerChrysler D+, General Motors D, Hyundai D, Nissan D Volkswagen D-.

Ford was touted for its improvements over last year, including developing a soy-based foam, and a corn-based bio-fabric for seating. DaimlerChrysler increased the use of renewable materials by 98 percent over some previous models.

The EPA doesn't monitor the air quality inside new vehicles, so it may be better to drive new cars with the windows open.

Biodiesel improves the air we breathe as well as contributing to a healthy economy. According to a study by consulting firm LECG, biodiesel production could add more than $2 billion per year to the U.S. economy during the next decade. Using domestically produced biodiesel primarily produced from soybeans could add nearly 40,000 jobs.

Although you have to carefully consider the data from any study whose results benefit the company that paid for the research (in this case the soybean industry), creating jobs across sectors -- agriculture, high and low tech industrial positions as well as service jobs -- increases the tax base and boosts employment.

The increasing reliance on biodiesel will also keep up to $13.6 billion within the U.S. and to a small degree counter our increasing trade deficit, which devalues the dollar.

According to Piston Heads, BMW has announced the start of production of the new BMW Hydrogen 7, which it reckons is the world’s first hydrogen-powered luxury car -- although it can also run on standard petrol.

Destined to make its first public appearance on 28 November at the Los Angeles Motor Show, the Hydrogen 7 will be built in limited numbers and offered to selected users in 2007.

Also check out Autoblog Green which reports that the new BMW went into production yesterday.

The spinmeisters at the Competitive Enterprise Institute are spreading information about climate change and attacking the scientists who produce critical reports about carbon emissions.

Scientists who link global warming to events like increasingly strong hurricanes are finding their credibility challenged by the CEI, according to the New Scientist. But the "institute" is really a shill for the oil industry, taking money from ExxonMobil and the auto industry to take positions -- not founded in science -- against energy efficiency or reducing emissions.

These attacks detract from developing technology that will create a more sustainable future. By spreading fear uncertainty and doubt, CEI and the companies that give them money are hindering efforts to create technologies that will improve the quality of life and grow the economy.

CEI produced commercials about how CO2 is our friend, as seen on YouTube. To see these jokers in action, check out Myron Ebell (not a scientist), who is head of CEI's climate change policy as interviewed on TV at the DeSmogBlog.

Start up the wind turbines in the Northwest. The voters of Washington state have approved (barely) a renewable portfolio standard that requires utilities to generate energy from renewable sources.

Although the initial requirement of 3 percent renewables by 2012 may not seem like much, according to law firm Stoel Rives, the state currently uses very little wind or solar power. Utilities will also be required to conserve energy or face fines of $50 per megawatt hour.

Washington becomes the 22nd state with a RPS, creating job opportunities for solar and wind manufacturers and installers. Let's see how long it takes for the other 28 to follow suit.

If you are looking to slash your heating costs this winter, check out insulation made from recycled materials. Cellulose insulation uses 85 percent recycled products including old newspapers and is blown into place, according to the NewTimesLive.

The insulation can pay for itself in a few years, especially with the cost of natural gas and home heating oil continually rising. While doing an entire house isn't cheap (between $1,500 and $5,000), using recycled materials is healthier and you can avoid getting itchy from the standard fiberglass insulation (an experience I had yesterday while working in my attic.) The Deparment of Energy has a calculator to estimate what is the best level of insulation (R value) needed to add based on your current setup.

Here's a list of companies that offer cellulose insulation.

Companies that produce components for solar energy systems are teaming up to design a better integrated system.

Delta Electronics and DelSolar Co, both of Taiwan signed an agreement to work with STMicroelectronics NV on "increasing solar cell production, and developing photovoltaic inverter and power supply applications," according to the companies.

STM focuses on power conversion applications, DelSolar manufactures solar cell and Delta works on switching power supply technology.

Hopefully this collaboration will reduce the cost of solar cells while increasing their ability to increase the energy conversion efficiency.