Mr. Green by Elizabeth Kolbert is a profile of guru environmentalist Amory Lovins. Lovins is the founder and C.E.O. of the Rocky Mountain Institute, whose goal is to foster “the efficient and restorative use of resources to make the world secure, just, prosperous, and life-sustaining.” He argues that the United States can cut its oil imports to zero by the year 2040, and its use entirely by 2050. And make money in the process. Sound unbelievable? Probably. But Lovins appears to be the real deal. He knows his stuff. He’s focused and driven.

Lovins first came to the nation’s attention during the first energy crisis of 1976. It was then, in an article published in Foreign Affairs, that he first proclaimed that the U.S. could eliminate its dependency on fossil fuels. He’s stuck to his argument ever since, and has spent the last thirty years working to prove it. In countless articles and books, Lovins has discussed ideas like microgeneration, green housing, and energy efficiency.

Consider his argument against incandescent bulbs, for example.

By replacing a seventy-five-watt incandescent light bulb with a fourteen-watt compact fluorescent bulb, an individual can, for example, produce sixty-one negawatts. (A negawatt is a watt of electricity that does not have to be generated because an energy-saving measure has obviated the need for it.) By replacing ten incandescent bulbs with ten compact fluorescents, the individual can generate six hundred and ten nagawatts. Negawatts tend to produce more negawatts; for instance, a house lit with compact fluorescents requires less air-conditioning, since fluorescent bulbs emit a fraction of the heat of incandescents. The same principle can be applied to all forms of energy, including oil.

Or, since seventy percent of oil is consumed by the transportation industry, consider this:

The power needed to propel a car is a function of its weight, so building a vehicle out of steel means using energy largely to move metal…by switching to ultra-light vehicles (including airplanes) and implementing a variety of other ‘end-use efficiency’ technologies the U.S. could eliminate half of its oil needs. It could eliminate another twenty per cent by substituting biofuels for oil, and the last thirty per cent by replacing oil with natural gas.

What’s more, Lovins proclaims that all of this can be done without any change in lifestyle, without any loss in economic growth. It’s all about reimagining, he says. It sounds great. Astounding. Revolutionary, even. So what are the arguments against him?

Lovins believes in a free-market economy, that applied rationally, it, alone, will solve the problem. History has repeatedly shown otherwise, however. In this case, I think Lovins’ ideas will need a gigantic push from the government. Especially in the education department.

Also, think about the fact that greater efficiency often means more consumption. Here’s an example: Traffic on the I-5 consistently comes to a stand still. The solution? Add two more lanes. In the short term, this may solve the problem. Cars will be more spread out because there is now more road per car. But then what happens? People see that the traffic has improved and start driving more often. People that normally use mass transportation, start taking their own vehicle. And just like that, we’re back to square one.

Plus, in my opinion, fluorescent lighting sucks, and ultra-light weight cars sound scary. Think about another car hitting you in one of those.

That said, Lovins’ ideas are too important to let these hang-ups stop us from exploring, and implementing, energy efficiency and environmentalism. And Lovins’ attitude may be the most imperative tool of all. He’s an optimist in a pessimist’s world. He’s a go-getter, a man who sees a way around every obstacle. We should all take a cue from him and think outside the box. But as he says, “There is no box.” So why are we still in it?

Heirs by Amos Oz is a brilliantly crafted story which unfolds like a mystery. The use of repetition is masterful, and is crucial to the foundation. It builds the story to the precipice, then unfolds it back on itself.

Three years earlier, Na’ama, Aryeh Zelnik’s wife, had gone to visit her best friend, Sara Grant, in San Diego. She hadn’t returned…

Their married daughter, Hila, wrote to him from Boston, “Dad, I suggest, for your own good, don’t pressure Mom. Find yourself another life.”

And because he and his son, Eldad, had long ago severed all contact, and because apart from his family he had no person close to him, he had decided last year to liquidate his apartment on Mt. Carmel and go back to live with his mother in the old house in Tel Ilan…

Later:

Aryeh Zelnik suddenly recalled the advice of his daughter, Hila, to give up on his wife and begin a new life. The truth was that he had not made much of an effort to get Na’ama back. After they had quarrelled bitterly and she had gone to visit her best friend, Sara Grant, Aryeh Zelnik had packed all her clothes and belongings and shipped them to Sara’s address in San Diego. When Eldad had cut off all contact with him, he had packed up his books and even his childhood toys and sent them to him He had cleaned away all traces, the way you clean out an enemy position at the end of a battle. A few months later, he had packed up his own belongings, liquidated his apartment in Haifa, and moved into his mother’s house here in Tel Ilan.

It’s a fascinating and often perplexing structure. After the first read, I said Ah-ha! Then I went back and read it again and saw a different possibility. The third time, I found another. I’m afraid to read it again! Who knows what I will find! I do, however, think my initial impression regarding the conclusion was correct, but I wonder how others will interpret it.