We are setting up a show-down among three recently hot topics - energy, economy and environment.

Looking back over the past year is quite interesting. We have had oil (and its derived products) reach historic price levels. We have seen unprecedented awareness in schools and on main street regarding greenhouse gases and environmental issues. Finally, we have the economic events of the past few months that have cast a dark shadow of uncertainty over it all.

The average person can wrap their arms around one issue or decide between two competing objectives, but it gets more complicated when you need to choose among three competing interests.

People are increasingly looking at their pocketbook and asking themselves - “I like the idea of being environmentally friendly, but how much is it worth to me?” Of course, this is being driven by increasing economic uncertainty. Good environmental ideas from last month are still good ideas, but I would submit that we begin to see a shift toward more practical ideas from consumer attitudes and behaviors.

This eco-pragmatism (evaluation of an action or purchase based on the practicality of the good or service as part of its environmental impact) can be contrasted with greenwashing  (application of an eco-friendly label or classification to a product (often inappropriately) so that it appears to be eco-friendly) that you have undoubtedly been subjected to as you walk down the aisle at your favorite store.

In the coming year, I think we will see a more products that offer a positive economic impact while improving an environmental concern. Costly items like solar panels and wind turbines will still have their buyers, but clean-tech pellet and wood boilers will share the spotlight. While the latter does not provide the air quality improvement of the first two, it is a significant improvement over a conventional fossil fuel.

Recently there has been increased press coverage regarding the steps some state and provincial governments are taking to ensure that people can afford to stay warm this winter. Take a look at what is happening in Canada in this article from The Canadian Press. If you want a dose of reality — take a look at this article from the The Associated Press. Talk about depressing.

I am not against short-term subsidies, but the money being discussed begs the question — “Isn’t there a better way?” The same families that require the help this winter will most likely require the same help next year when fuel oil prices are even higher. Have we really made in any progress? We may have bought ourselves a little time, but that is all.

Of course the time we buy this winter will not save us for next winter — all of the wonderful energy projects being discussed on the national scene — wind farms, new oil production, solar power are years from widespread realization. So what is the answer?

Basically, there are two things that can be done aside from turning down your thermostat:

Improve home energy efficiency — sixty percent of the nergy used in the home is in the heating system. Insulation, weather stripping, and programable thermostats are just a few of the ways to reduce the fuel requirement in the home. In those regions of the country that are facing a crisis, why not make these improvements a requirement of, or even better yet, part of any fuel subsidy.

Move to a cheaper fuel source — In hard hit rural and small towns, wood or pellet fired systems are a viable option. Now, take that $750 subsidy and apply that to buy-down the interest rate on a loan or even better yet, provide a government guaranteed low interest loan. Imagine what that would do for to make a new wood/pellet heating system affordable AND provide a long-term solution to the heating dilemma. This type of program has been available in Europe for quite some time, so why are we so slow in exploring them?

The rhetoric surrounding the Presidential election is now picking up, especially after both parties recent conventions. Traditional topics are still front and center - education, the economy, and foreign policy to name a few. But now there is s new wrinkle.

As someone who pays more than he wants to at the gasoline pump and is concerned about how US energy policy affects other decisions made in Washington, I am cautiously optimistic about the potential to see some meaninful change in our energy dependence. Unlike elections in the past, energy and energy policy are now taking a higher profile.

Take a look at what each of the candidates are saying about their energy policy:

• McCain’s Lexington Project - http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
• Obama’s New Energy for America - http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

Will anything change — if energy independence is important to you, I encourage you to become familiar with the candidates platforms and make your voice heard!