We can't afford to make any more mistakes in how to 'save the planet.' Start by ditching corn ethanol.
Comment: Last night, conservative talk show host Glen Beck interviewed the Governor of Montana who says that his state has a 200-year supply of auto fuel for the entire USA waiting to be extracted from Montana's vast coal reserves. The technology to do this has existed, at least, from the 1940's and environmental safeguards can be applied.
Also: ETHANOL FROM NON-FOOD BIOMASS --> WWW.COSKATA.COM
Comment: since when do trains get 400mpg... they get like 3 gallons per mile with a heavy load. Sounds like she is talking out of her behind.
Comment: since when do trains get 400mpg... they get like 3 gallons per mile with a heavy load. Sounds like she is talking out of her behind.
Comment: I dont think she has researched mush before she wrote this article. I agree that ethanol will not save the planet but it is a step in the right direction. She also said that trains get 400 mpg they get more like 3 gallons per mile with a heavy load.
Comment: Ethanol from cellulosic biomass (non-food biomass) is made from the unused waste of the corn plant - corn stalks, corn cobs, husks, but also from switchgrass which never needs plowing, irrigation or fertilizer. it grows completely unattended like a weed because it is a weed. Switchgrass provides more ethanol energy per acre than corn (more gallons per acre). And because you don't have to do anything after the seed is spread but harvest it, the energy and dollar inputs are minimal. Switchgrass is an original native species that grows from border to border and coast to coast in the USA.
Waste wood is another fine source of non-food biomass for ethanol production. The only cost is picking it up off the ground in any forested area of the USA. Removing the waste wood reduces the danger of wild fires breaking out spontaneously as we often see in western forest land. This would also beautify the forest lands.
I don't know how any intelligent person can say that ethanol is more expensive to produce than gasoline. With oil, first you have to do a very costly and usually fruitless search for it. Then when you find it you have to drill for weeks or months. Oil drillers are often killed or maimed in drilling operations. Then you have to transport it from the well-head to the refinery. Then at the refinery you have to separate all the components of crude oil to get gasoline which involves generating super-heated steam to perform the separation process. Then, you have to transport the gasoline to the local gas stations and clean up all the waste and pollution created all along the routes of transportation from the well-head to the gas station. That doesn't sound very cheap to me.
Non-food biomass for ethanol production can be found everywhere in the environment. Take those ugly tire junkyards that clutter our cities and countryside. Old tires are one of the prime breeding grounds for mosquitoes that spread all kinds of diseases. We can reduce all those old tire junkyards to nothing - put them all in the hopper and convert them all to ethanol and SAVE THE COSTS associated with junkyards and treating diseases and pollution and beautify America while returning land to more productive uses.
Ethanol from biomass produces 84% LESS pollution and greenhouse gases as compared to gasoline exhaust from cars. The only problems with ethanol from non-food biomass exist in the minds of oil company owners and executives because they see their jobs and income going away. Those workers employed in the oil industry can switch over to ethanol production with very little training and a definite improvement in their working environment. Oil companies have been mixing ethanol into gasoline for years to improve the burning properties of gasoline. Why not go all the way?
Comment: There's nothing free market about ethanol. It's currently more expensive to produce than gasoline, yet is funded anyway through tax subsidies (government encouraged polution). 80% of the ethanol used in the US is corn ethanol, which makes it easy to see why so many politicians are so fond of it.
Comment: To tall-okie: If there are large numbers of suppliers around the world competing against one another as can be done with ethanol from biomass and the technology can be duplicated without much difficulty as can be done with ethanol from biomass and the courts make a decent effort to break up monopolies as they did under President Teddy Roosevelt and President Taft, then there should be much less chance of suppliers joining together to form localized monopolies as has happened with oil which can only be found in certain places on earth and which is very costly to extract. So, I don't see the need for the paranoia that you display other than that paranoia is self-perpetuating. In any case, if big oil can produce fuel at a lower price than ethanol-from-cellulosic-biomass producers, then there's nothing to stop them in our free market. But if ethanol is lower in price, it should drag down the price of oil with it.
By the way, tall-okie, you wouldn't happen to be an oil well owner out there in Oklahoma - would you? Because if you are, I can see how you would want to make as much smoke and noise as possible to distract this debate from the real facts and simple common logic.
Comment: Can't you see the fallacy of this whole "greenwashing" gig through your own language? Now, wait a minute before you throw your infidel slams at me. I'll grant that there just might be evidence that the avg temp of the earth might have warmed a slight amount. And by the way, the latest reports show the avg temp of the earth has actually cooled. But you got to face the facts, that there is absolutely NOOOOO concrete evidence that it is anthropogenic. Now, back to the article: Notice that no one has given definite ways to reverse this purported disaster. There are TONS of folks out there advising the average dupe of how to alleviate their guilt resulting from the pap that is being spewed by companies that are racking in the dough by selling "green' products or carbon offsets. But one question: How much do you have to change before you feel better about your guilt of not being 'green' enough. I'll wager that you NEVER reach that point. The purpose of this whole campaign is NOT to save this planet or any other planet for that matter. The purpose is to hold you hostage by guilting you in to doing whatever they want you to do or selling you whatever they want you to buy. Yeah... you argue Big Oil is making record profits off warming the globe. But PLEASE in all honesty, ask yourself: JUST WHO IS making record profits off global warming? C'mon, be honest. YOu know who. Hint: it's going to be someone else who will have control over you.
Comment: Bravo ! I'm not used to such honesty and courage from the old media. Watch your back though. Your professional as well as your literal life could be in danger from the forces of tolerance and inclusion.
Comment: I'm reading that a synergy has been discovered between producing ethanol from non-food biomass and producing biodiesel and ethanol from green algae, carbon dioxide and sunlight. Each technology can be enhanced by using the waste products, waste heat, etc. of the other. This results in a combined efficiency that is greater than either technology standing alone. We're just scratching the surface of how beneficial this biofuels technology can become several years down the road. The current outrageously high prices for gasoline seem to me to be "the last hurrah" for big oil - their last chance to squeeze the public for every last cent in their pockets before ethanol and green algae take over.
Comment: On April 1st of this year, the EU decided that it would no longer pay farmers NOT TO GROW CROPS. And here I thought that europe had so little arable land that it had to cultivate every square inch (OOps!! - every square centimeter). They say crop rpoduction can increase 15% to 20%. Now just imagine what the USA and Canada could do following the same rule.
Comment: My car runs on 160 proof ethanol, and it get 500 miles per gallon. this is not a joke. E-mail me at onrightrack@comcast.net and i will try and help you.
Comment: My car runs on 160 proof ethanol, and it get 500 miles per gallon. this is not a joke. Call me at (609)-953-5788 and i will try and help you.
Comment: Concrete, I can do you one better: my DeLorean runs on cold fusion and gets 2,000 miles on just one pound of household garbage. Better still, my car is also a time machine -- I can go back to the year 1985(when gas was a buck a gallon) and fill up my car for real cheap. Yes, this _is_ a joke. Let's face it, we are both joking. Although your offers to contact you for "help" may be sincere, I have to wonder: just what are you trying to sell?
Comment: Sharon Begley is an oil company representative, and an outright traitor to the USA.
I built a distillery and converted my GM car to run on 160 proof ethanol by 1982.
Brazil is energy independent: ethanol; All their cars come built running on ethanol; The gas stations in Brazil can fill the tanks with ethanol, no gasoline.
Archer Daniel Midland made millions in the USA selling $1.00 gallon ethanol in the 1990s;
That trumps any canard/invalid objection to ethanol. Use Cellulose ethanol, not corn ethanol.
Cellulose Ethanol energy independence in the USA, will balance the trade deficit, create full employment, bring down the price of fuel, break the monopoly on the pricing of fuel, balance the USA government budget, create less pollution, make the USA energy independent, and end the war because we will stop funding the bad guys everyday at the gas pumps.
With all the cars running on ethanol; the price of oil will collapse and the radical Moslem hordes will no longer have the funds we used to give them from gasoline sales to finance the war against us.
We can see how clean ethanol burns real easy. If one were to fill one thimble with ethanol and one thimble with gasoline and light a match to each the gasoline billows smoke, with the ethanol the barely visible light blue flame can barely be seen. What you see is what did not burn: the pollution. This is before any polution equipment is added to clean what little pollution there is. There is more pollution in the Bigley, traitor that she is, article than in ethanol.
Gasoline is one of the most toxic substances known to be available. Ethanol is what you drink in beer. One drop of gasoline on your skin causes cancer, one drop condensed in your lungs and you die on the spot from chemical pneumonia.Just Google it.
The molecular structure of gasoline contains tons more carbon than the same quantity of ethanol. Just Google it.
Ethanol can not create Exxon Valdez disasters to the environment because it is not toxic.
Bigley really likes funding the terrorist at the gas pump every day, that is why she lies about ethanol; who pays you on the side to sell out your country Mrs. Bigamy: traitor lady who sells out her country; nobody could be that stupid.
Intelligence analyst: Getzel
Comment: Hybrids aren't plugged in as Sharon states. Only "plug-in Hybrids" which aren't sold yet by the major car makers. And when plug ins arrive they'll be way more efficient than gas cars with respect to CO2 per mile driven because burning coal etc, is more efficient than burning gas. And hybrid cars don't get better mileage than their pure gas counterparts? Complete BS. Name ONE!
Jim
Comment: At least ethanol is renewable and self-sustaining, whereas fossil fuels are in limited supply.
Comment: at least ethanol is renewable and self-sustaining, unlike fossil fuels which are consumptive only.
Comment: (cont???d)
As far as what we, as individuals, can do? Well, you've heard it all before:
-- Use public transportation whenever possible.
-- Use NO transportation when possible (work from home, walk or bicycle to work).
-- Make sure your home is well-insulated, and that there are no air leaks around doors and windows. If you are considering replacing your windows, look for windows that filter sunlight and thus reduce the load on your air conditioner.
-- Keep your thermostat at 68 degrees or lower during the winter, and 78 degrees or higher during the summer.
-- If you have the space and the wherewithal, grow your own food. Trust me, it tastes WAY better than anything you can get in the store.
-- Use compact fluorescent light bulbs when possible. If money is no object, go with LEDs.
-- Unplug your computer monitor when not in use. The same goes for printers, charges, cable boxes ... anything that has any kind of "sleep" mode.
-- If you're going to water your lawn, do it shortly before sundown. You'll lose less to evaporation, and your lawn will thank you for it.
-- If you have any kind of garden, consider building a gray water collection system. This water can be used to water your garden, provided your detergents are biodegradable.
-- Teach your kids to sleep without nightlights.
-- When driving, smooth is the ticket. Sudden changes in speed can suck down fuel like nobody's business. I have a Prius, and while I've been averaging about 50 MPG with this thing I've noticed that, under medium to hard acceleration, my mileage can be as low as 4 MPG. Under lighter acceleration, it's closer to 25-28 MPG.
-- Speaking of driving, consolidate your trips.
-- If you work with people who also live near you, consider carpooling. You save wear-and-tear on your vehicles, and fuel costs for all participants go down drastically.
-- If you are building and/or renovating a house, or don't mind doing a LOT of electrical work in your home, contact your power company and ask about an off-peak meter. This is a second power meter for your home, and power to this meter is shut off during certain times of day. The upside is that, depending on what you have being fed from this meter, you can instantly save up to 60% on your electric bill. The downside is that you have to install a second electrical panel, do a lot of wiring work, etc. which can be a royal pain in the neck.
-- At the very least, contact your utility company and ask about an energy audit of your home. Some companies will perform this audit for free under certain circumstances; all you have to do is ask.
-- SHUT OFF THE TV. Not only does this significanly reduce your power usage, it also gives your kids time to read, play, and do something other than sitting on the couch with vacant stares while SpongeBob tries (yet again) to coax his heroes, Mermaid Man and Barnacle boy, out of retirement.
I'm sure there are plenty of other suggestions. Let's hear 'em, folks!
Comment: Okay, let's tackle this in small chunks:
First, the argument that ethanol is not quite as green as many would have us believe is quite true. Sure, the ethanol itself has drastically lower CO2 emissions that fossil fuels. However, in order to get an acurate accounting of the TOTAL carbon footprint, the following factors must be taken into account:
-- The fuel used to run the tractors on the farms on which the corn is grown. These are generally deisel engines.
-- The fuel used to transport the harvested product to a processing/refining facility. Again, very reliant on deisel engines.
-- The processing itself, which uses an enormous amount of electricity. If this electricity is generated at a coal-fired plant, the CO2 cost is hideous.
-- Transport from the refinery to distribution facilities (aka gas sstations). yet again, deisel engines.
Other factors include the increased cost of corn used for food as a result of a greater amount of it being diverted into ethanol production, increased costs of other produce as a result of some farmers turning more and more of their acreage over to corn production, etc.
When all these factors are taken into account, the NET CO2 reduction is actually quite small.
So here's what can be done:
-- Nuclear power is an option, albeit not the most attractive one. And, in my opinion, until we find either a truly safe means of disposal for the waste products or an economical method of rendering them inert and harmless, not really a viable one either.
-- Solar power technology is moving ahead by leaps and bounds. Only a few years ago, it cost in the neighborhood of $1.10 to generate one watt of power with solar technology. The most recent figures, reflecting advances in technology, put that number closer to between ten and twelve cents.
-- Wind power is clean, safe, low-tech and reliable. It's biggest problem is that it relies on being located in areas with consistent winds ... a calm day renders them useless.
-- Tidal hydroelectric is a nascent technology that has been proposed in numerous science fiction novels but is just now seeing the light of day. Hydroelectric turbines that can be suspended in the Gulf Stream, or anchored in areas with dramatic tides (the Bay of Fundy, for example) are available with current technology; the problem lies in the transport to dry land -- a lot of power is lost simply by virtue of the cables being so long.
-- It has also been proposed that solar collectors could be mounted in orbit and the resulting power beamed to Earth via microwaves. On paper, it sounds great: the collectors would never have to deal with the environmental conditions the would on the ground (nightfall, cloudy days) and they would be receiving solar energy unfilitered by the Earth's atmosphere. However, this is a purely theoretical approach at this point; we simply do not have the technology to make such an approach economically feasible.
Comment: Nobody has mentioned nuclear power. I know, they can be potentially dangerous, but they provide most of the electricity in Europe. In France, they build all their plants exactly the same -- less chance for screw ups. We need drastic changes and sometimes change is scary. I find terrorists scarier than nuclear power.
I also agree that driving a gas guzzler is nuts, but Americans feel like it is their God given right to consume and use anything that is for sale. Ross Perot had the right idea years ago when he was running for President. Hee wanted to make gasoline so expensive that people would be forced to conserve. It made him pretty unpopular, but it made sense to me then and now. Other parts of the world have been paying $3 and $4 a gallon (liter) for years. Wake up America and quit being so freaking selfish and ignorant. Global warming or not, think about pollution and how we are held hostage by our fuel habit.
Comment: Nobody has mentioned nuclear power. I know, they can be potentially dangerous, but they provide most of the electricity in Europe. In France, they build all their plants exactly the same -- less chance for screw ups. We need drastic changes and sometimes change is scary. I find terrorists scarier than nuclear power.
I also agree that driving a gas guzzler is nuts, but Americans feel like it is their God given right to consume and use anything that is for sale. Ross Perot had the right idea years ago when he was running for President. Hee wanted to make gasoline so expensive that people would be forced to conserve. It made him pretty unpopular, but it made sense to me then and now. Other parts of the world have been paying $3 and $4 a gallon (liter) for years. Wake up America and quit being so freaking selfish and ignorant. Global warming or not, think about pollution and how we are held hostage by our fuel habit.
Comment: I dont know what planet she is from, but the clueless one comes to my mind. Dont waste the corn ---- Give it away to the 3rd world countries at the taxpayer expense. Oh corn is the evil item that is destroying our society's little house of cards. Hell we have been using Hydrogen for over 30 years... Government didnt share that with you did they now......Water as fuel? been going on for over 30 years........ Ethanol for fuel.. yo! numb nuts.. your fuel has had ethanol in it for over 20 years!!!.... Recycle green nuts......Use glass - get rid of plastic.. charge people for what they throw away.. Life isnt a convienence. Put a deposit on plastic , it will get recycled........Really want to be green- grow your own food in your yard- use a biomass toilet with a maserator it reduces the time to process by 35%. Better yet use septic and do methane capture...... Here -Quit driving your 4x4 SUV soccer mom and teach your kids to use mass transit. Improve mass transit and reduce the foot print.. What a bunch of freaks it takes to believe writers like this........Why do I know you ask... I am one of those people who design the stuff....... They dont want your car to get 50 miles to the gallon---- Get it? sure it can be done, but the oil companies are in bed with the auto makers===== Get it?
They dont want you save energy, then no one will buy it------Get it? In colorado they said save water we are running out=== they saved so much water the local water board had to raise rates to pay for the little bit of water they buy , which in actuality went to too many overpaid executives== Get it?
Comment: And guess where all the "wind and solar farms" are being built? Right! Pristine wilderness!!! The gorgeous, precious ecosystem of the Mojave (Joshua Tree et al) is totally under siege, while 99.9% of the developed land in Southern California has neither solar nor wind generation on it. Rooftop solar is totally unsupported, despite the PR machine, and companies are too cheap and too lazy to use brownfields, marginal agricultural and other developed areas. Utility-scale wind and solar are a TOTAL RIPOFF, impoverishing ratepayers, exercising massive eminent domain, and increasing utility cholkeo
Comment: Sharon Begley is a courageous writer. Corn ethanol is the biggest scam in the history of the U.S. and anyone who can't see that is either (1) a member of the powerful corn and ethanol lobbies or a Midwest politician, or (2) totally blind to reality. Corn ethanol is a lose-lose-lose proposition for our environment, our federal budget and our vehicle mileage. These are the facts, plain and simple. Thankfully, people are learning this.
Comment: Sharon Begley is an oil company representative, and an outright traitor to the USA.
I built a distillery and converted my GM car to run on 160 proof ethanol by 1982.
Brazil is energy independent: ethanol; All their cars come built running on ethanol; The gas stations in Brazil can fill the tanks with ethanol, no gasoline.
Archer Daniel Midland made millions in the USA selling $1.00 gallon ethanol in the 1990s;
That trumps any canard/invalid objection to ethanol. Use Cellulose ethanol, not corn ethanol.
Cellulose Ethanol energy independence in the USA, will balance the trade deficit, create full employment, bring down the price of fuel, break the monopoly on the pricing of fuel, balance the USA government budget, create less pollution, make the USA energy independent, and end the war because we will stop funding the bad guys everyday at the gas pumps.
With all the cars running on ethanol; the price of oil will collapse and the radical Moslem hordes will no longer have the funds we used to give them from gasoline sales to finance the war against us.
We can see how clean ethanol burns real easy. If one were to fill one thimble with ethanol and one thimble with gasoline and light a match to each the gasoline billows smoke, with the ethanol the barely visible light blue flame can barely be seen. What you see is what did not burn: the pollution. This is before any polution equipment is added to clean what little pollution there is. There is more pollution in the Bigley, traitor that she is, article than in ethanol.
Gasoline is one of the most toxic substances known to be available. Ethanol is what you drink in beer. One drop of gasoline on your skin causes cancer, one drop condensed in your lungs and you die on the spot from chemical pneumonia.Just Google it.
The molecular structure of gasoline contains tons more carbon than the same quantity of ethanol. Just Google it.
Ethanol can not create Exxon Valdez disasters to the environment because it is not toxic.
Bigley really likes funding the terrorist at the gas pump every day, that is why she lies about ethanol; who pays you on the side to sell out your country Mrs. Bigamy: traitor lady who sells out her country; nobody could be that stupid.
Intelligence analyst: Getzel
Comment: First, none of the hybrid electric cars currently sold in the US are plug-ins. They operate using a gasoline engine to charge a battery which drives an electric motor and to assist during acceleration as needed. There is additional fuel economy is the result of regenerative braking and automatic engine shutoff during stops. If plug in electric or fully electric vehicles were implemented and using 100% coal generated electricity, studies show that CO2 emissions will be reduced by 0-59%*. In no case is the electric vehicle (EV) more polluting than gasoline internal combustion engines (GICE). The efficiencies are much better with EV???s than with GICE???s which offsets the higher CO2 production per BTU content of coal versus gasoline. While I will be the first to admit that coal as we extract and burn it today is not without significant environmental impacts, EV???s give us the opportunity to reduce CO2 output now and drastically in the future with implementation of renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal). These efficiencies and lower cost of electricity result in a $0.02 - $0.04 per mile for EV???s. Assuming the average American car with an efficiency of 27 mpg, $3.50 per gallon of gas results in $0.13 per mile ??? over three times as much as the EV. Plus, the price the consumer pays for gas is much more than what is seen at the pump, by the time you factor in the tax money that the federal government sends overseas to prop up unelected governments in politically volatile areas in order to maintain access to the supply. Not to mention the resulting ???entangling alliances,??? which draw us into unnecessary, unaffordable and unsustainable military conflicts. Finally, how can you say that the individual can???t have an impact for the better? Shame on you! Individual improvements in our daily lives will result in an awesome collective impact. The insinuation that the government can cost effectively impose the needed changes is ludicrous. I think most Americans will agree that the last thing we need at this time is yet an another increase in the size of the federal government ??? which is already ???unsustainable??? financially. So, how should the government help? Reduce my taxes so that I can afford to install a solar panel on my home and buy an electric vehicle!
* http://www.sherryboschert.com/Downloads/Emissions%5B11%5D.pdf
Comment: I live buy an ethonal plant. All the corn that goes into that plant is grown in the state supporting farmers here, istead of being sold to a cheap foreighn market. Please note that if it had not been for the ethonal plant being built, the market would have been so low farmers would have gone out of business. Then we would be spending more money because of having to buy corn, wheat and soy beans from other countries.
Comment: Sharon Begley is an oil company representative, and an outright traitor to the USA.
I built a distillery and converted my GM car to run on 160 proof ethanol by 1982.
Brazil is energy independent: ethanol; All their cars come built running on ethanol; The gas stations in Brazil can fill the tanks with ethanol, no gasoline.
Archer Daniel Midland made millions in the USA selling $1.00 gallon ethanol in the 1990s;
That trumps any canard/invalid objection to ethanol. Use Cellulose ethanol, not corn ethanol.
Cellulose Ethanol energy independence in the USA, will balance the trade deficit, create full employment, bring down the price of fuel, break the monopoly on the pricing of fuel, balance the USA government budget, create less pollution, make the USA energy independent, and end the war because we will stop funding the bad guys everyday at the gas pumps.
With all the cars running on ethanol; the price of oil will collapse and the radical Moslem hordes will no longer have the funds we used to give them from gasoline sales to finance the war against us.
We can see how clean ethanol burns real easy. If one were to fill one thimble with ethanol and one thimble with gasoline and light a match to each the gasoline billows smoke, with the ethanol the barely visible light blue flame can barely be seen. What you see is what did not burn: the pollution. This is before any polution equipment is added to clean what little pollution there is. There is more pollution in the Bigley, traitor that she is, article than in ethanol.
Gasoline is one of the most toxic substances known to be available. Ethanol is what you drink in beer. One drop of gasoline on your skin causes cancer, one drop condensed in your lungs and you die on the spot from chemical pneumonia.Just Google it.
The molecular structure of gasoline contains tons more carbon than the same quantity of ethanol. Just Google it.
Ethanol can not create Exxon Valdez disasters to the environment because it is not toxic.
Bigley really likes funding the terrorist at the gas pump every day, that is why she lies about ethanol; who pays you on the side to sell out your country Mrs. Bigamy: traitor lady who sells out her country; nobody could be that stupid.
Intelligence analyst: Getzel
Comment: Fire the fact-checkers! In what alternative universe does Sharon Begley live where "If you plug [your hybrid electric car] in at night, when most people do". There are no factory-produced plug-in hybrid cars on the planet, and most of the Priuses that have been hacked/retrofitted as plug-ins are here in California, where there is essentially no coal-produced electricity. Sharon, do your homework.
Ian K
Comment: On the subject... do a little research on fluorescent light bulbs and you will find out that they all contain mercury. What happens in 10 years when we are all trying to dispose of this toxin within our house?
Governments take: DONT BREAK THEM!
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm
Comment: It looks like Jonathan Harrington's book, "The Climate Diet," will provide useful information on how to evaluate food miles.
Comment: Sharon Begley is an oil company representative, and an outright traitor to the USA.
I built a distillery and converted my GM car to run on 160 proof ethanol by 1982.
Brazil is energy independent: ethanol; All their cars come built running on ethanol; The gas stations in Brazil can fill the tanks with ethanol, no gasoline.
Archer Daniel Midland made millions in the USA selling $1.00 gallon ethanol in the 1990s;
That trumps any canard/invalid objection to ethanol. Use Cellulose ethanol, not corn ethanol.
Cellulose Ethanol energy independence in the USA, will balance the trade deficit, create full employment, bring down the price of fuel, break the monopoly on the pricing of fuel, balance the USA government budget, create less pollution, make the USA energy independent, and end the war because we will stop funding the bad guys everyday at the gas pumps.
With all the cars running on ethanol; the price of oil will collapse and the radical Moslem hordes will no longer have the funds we used to give them from gasoline sales to finance the war against us.
We can see how clean ethanol burns real easy. If one were to fill one thimble with ethanol and one thimble with gasoline and light a match to each the gasoline billows smoke, with the ethanol the barely visible light blue flame can barely be seen. What you see is what did not burn: the pollution. This is before any polution equipment is added to clean what little pollution there is. There is more pollution in the Bigley, traitor that she is, article than in ethanol.
Gasoline is one of the most toxic substances known to be available. Ethanol is what you drink in beer. One drop of gasoline on your skin causes cancer, one drop condensed in your lungs and you die on the spot from chemical pneumonia.Just Google it.
The molecular structure of gasoline contains tons more carbon than the same quantity of ethanol. Just Google it.
Ethanol can not create Exxon Valdez disasters to the environment because it is not toxic.
Bigley really likes funding the terrorist at the gas pump every day, that is why she lies about ethanol; who pays you on the side to sell out your country Mrs. Bigamy: traitor lady who sells out her country; nobody could be that stupid.
Intelligence analyst: Getzel
Comment: Just another article responding to the mainstream fad of going green. And like most of these articles, only some of the statements are correct. Where can I buy this hybrid that I can plug in and use electricity from my inefficient, coal-burning utility company? Guess what, plug-ins aren't in production yet. And where do you think the "ever-green" Prius is produced? How do you think it gets from Japan to the U.S.? By a pollution free sailboat? I think not. Jonathan Harrington says "transportation is just one piece of it", but for a Prius, its a big piece. You think that freighter ship carrying your Prius has any emission controls on it? Not in the slightest.
The article touches upon the transportation piece when it comes to food, but fails to discuss it when it comes to ethanol vs. petroleum based gasoline. Again, imported oil requires the a non-emission controlled freighter to transport it from the Middle East to the U.S. Ethanol only has a short distance to travel and is refined in the central areas of the U.S., thus, minimizing the transportation costs to both coasts. And the semi-trucks transporting this ethanol have their emissions regulated by the EPA.
I am sadden that the U.S. readers are still enamored by articles such as this that don't apply the arguments they make to the statements they make further down the page.
Comment: The destruction from extracting coal it is almost always ignored. Mountains are being dismantled in my home, the Appalachians, and the Bush administration approved dumping it, so it ends up in the watershed. Whatever we do to produce ethanol requires land. If we use weeds, what happens when they get loose? Plants will be chosen for exactly the qualities that make them dangerous to wild areas.
Comment: This article hits the mark squarely.
As a consultant in plastic packaging to the major consumer goods companies and up to my elbows in this math for packaging, it is clear that small individual choices won't even get close.
Some quick math. Packaging is thought to be on the order of 5% (give or take) of all CO2. We need a CO2 reduction on the order of 70-80% . First, eliminating all packaging barely touches the problem and begs the question whether packaging should do anything al all relating to CO2. But, pretend packaging ought to do a proportional reduction of 80%. How do you get there? The 5-10% things we're doing now are completely in line with Ms. Begley's point. But, 5-10% reductions in packaging that's 5% of the total problem yield a .025-.5% impact on the total CO2 question. This isn't even important in the rounding error. The comment about refilling packages is right on the mark in terms of generating a big impact for packaging.
But, imagine yourself filling your re-usable canvas shopping bags with empty packages and taking them all to the store to refill. Next, try to imagine the force (economic or otherwise) to cause this behavior on a mass scale. It seems apparent that government compulsion is the more likely route if this is really what is going to be needed.
The UK's Guardian recently published a similar piece that included the question of whether our small actions as companys and individuals were actually diverting us from the real decisions that need to be made by convincing us we were doing something that would solve the problem. These small steps, in this view, not only won't deliver but retard the steps that are really needed and worsen the problem.
Goverment action will be needed for two reasons. First, individual behavior at the level necessary to have an effect will probably need to be compelled. Second, corporations taking the actions really necessary will put themselves at serious competitive disadvantage. Only a change required of all market players at the same time can maintain a viable marketplace and generate changes of the likely magnitude required.
As noted in other posts, government will muck this up. That doesn't mean, though, that government isn't the right approach. It's probably the only approach that will really work even though it will introduce other problems as well.
Comment: We need to think big. We need to automate America's highways and use geothermal generated electricity to power the highway where ever possible.
Automating our highways will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce green house gases, and reduce the amount of time spent in traffic jams.
Just think if you are going to work, or heading home after working, and you know exactly how much time your commute will take you. It will make use exponentially more productive and less stressed.
Comment: Sharon Begley is an oil company representative, and an outright traitor to the USA.
I built a distillery and converted my GM car to run on 160 proof ethanol by 1982.
Brazil is energy independent: ethanol; All their cars come built running on ethanol; The gas stations in Brazil can fill the tanks with ethanol, no gasoline.
Archer Daniel Midland made millions in the USA selling $1.00 gallon ethanol in the 1990s;
That trumps any canard/invalid objection to ethanol. Use Cellulose ethanol, not corn ethanol.
Cellulose Ethanol energy independence in the USA, will balance the trade deficit, create full employment, bring down the price of fuel, break the monopoly on the pricing of fuel, balance the USA government budget, create less pollution, make the USA energy independent, and end the war because we will stop funding the bad guys everyday at the gas pumps.
With all the cars running on ethanol; the price of oil will collapse and the radical Moslem hordes will no longer have the funds we used to give them from gasoline sales to finance the war against us.
We can see how clean ethanol burns real easy. If one were to fill one thimble with ethanol and one thimble with gasoline and light a match to each the gasoline billows smoke, with the ethanol the barely visible light blue flame can barely be seen. What you see is what did not burn: the pollution. This is before any polution equipment is added to clean what little pollution there is. There is more pollution in the Bigley, traitor that she is, article than in ethanol.
Gasoline is one of the most toxic substances known to be available. Ethanol is what you drink in beer. One drop of gasoline on your skin causes cancer, one drop condensed in your lungs and you die on the spot from chemical pneumonia.Just Google it.
The molecular structure of gasoline contains tons more carbon than the same quantity of ethanol. Just Google it.
Ethanol can not create Exxon Valdez disasters to the environment because it is not toxic.
Bigley really likes funding the terrorist at the gas pump every day, that is why she lies about ethanol; who pays you on the side to sell out your country Mrs. Bigamy: traitor lady who sells out her country; nobody could be that stupid.
Intelligence analyst: Getzel
Comment: Sharon Begley is an oil company representative, and an outright traitor to the USA.
I built a distillery and converted my GM car to run on 160 proof ethanol by 1982.
Brazil is energy independent: ethanol; All their cars come built running on ethanol; The gas stations in Brazil can fill the tanks with ethanol, no gasoline.
Archer Daniel Midland made millions in the USA selling $1.00 gallon ethanol in the 1990s;
That trumps any canard/invalid objection to ethanol. Use Cellulose ethanol, not corn ethanol.
Cellulose Ethanol energy independence in the USA, will balance the trade deficit, create full employment, bring down the price of fuel, break the monopoly on the pricing of fuel, balance the USA government budget, create less pollution, make the USA energy independent, and end the war because we will stop funding the bad guys everyday at the gas pumps.
With all the cars running on ethanol; the price of oil will collapse and the radical Moslem hordes will no longer have the funds we used to give them from gasoline sales to finance the war against us.
We can see how clean ethanol burns real easy. If one were to fill one thimble with ethanol and one thimble with gasoline and light a match to each the gasoline billows smoke, with the ethanol the barely visible light blue flame can barely be seen. What you see is what did not burn: the pollution. This is before any polution equipment is added to clean what little pollution there is. There is more pollution in the Bigley, traitor that she is, article than in ethanol.
Bigley really likes funding the terrorist at the gas pump every day, that is why she lies about ethanol; who pays you on the side to sell out your country Mrs. Bigamy: traitor lady who sells out her country; nobody could be that stupid.
Intelligence analyst: Getzel
Comment: continued from previous post: than to waste valueable resources chasing energy shadows in the night.
Comment: At peak production ethanol will only provide about 12% of our nations energy needs.This is not anywhere near enough to become self sufficient from an energy standpoint. The cost to produce ethanol plus the increase in higher food costs associated with ethanol production leads me to believe that we are searching for an energy nirvana that will only exacerbate our nations energy woes. There is no "magic formula" that will instantly solve our dependance on foreign oil in the foreseeable future. A better solution to the problem would be to develop a energy technology that will over enable us to gradually wean our nation off the stranglehold oil has us in now. Ethanol cannot provide that technology now nor will it ever. Our current energy policy is like trying to kill mosquitoes with a shotgun,which does nothing more
Comment: This is a horrible article. Perhaps one person doesn't make a difference, but it takes someone to start a movement, and any movement in a positive direction is better than sitting back and waiting for someone else to fix it.
Comment: Did the author read what she wrote? All solutions are no solution. Talk about fatalistic ramblings.
Comment: Did the author read what she wrote? Quite the fatalist - all solutions are no solution. So what is the answer?
Comment: One real solution is ditching the suburban lifestyle and focus on sustainable planning and design. Too much corn is being grown already, and is far to much apart of the western diet in processed foods. We do not need to be constantly losing diverse farmers to the luxuries of subsidized corn farming. Eating locally supports farmers that are needed, promotes sustainability, and is much healthier. Cars make us fat.
Comment: Oh, yes... let's have the government fix the problem! If you think things are bad now, then just wait 'till we're all living in the new age of serfdom. I just can't wait to have Big Brother tell me when to turn on my lights, what kind of car I can drive, etc. , etc. I think many people underestimate the connection between basic goods and the level of mobility, choice, and freedom we have within our personal lives. More frightening still is that people will hand over their rights and freedom of choice wholesale in response to what is - at best - theory and fear mongering. Surely there is someone out there who remembers the Global Cooling scare of the 1970's? Surely there is someone who is aware that many of the statistics we are using as Global Warming benchmarks are skewed? Surely there is someone who trembles a bit at the thought of Al Gore's Totalitarian, Soviet-style advocate campaign? Surely there must be someone who can look at the whole picture and say outloud that what is going on relative to Global Warming prevention seems less like an altruistic movement, and more like a shell game... a bit of sleight of hand to distract us all while emerging nations are put down, and the Western world comes under the grips (once again) of near-dictatorial governments.
Oh... and to the person who couldn't make up their mind as to whether or not to feel guily about using the energy efficient bulbs because they release mercury into the landfills: Don't worry. Come 2012, you will no longer have a choice as incandescent bulbs have effectively come under a ban endorsed by Congress and production will be halted completely in five years. (Google it if you doubt me)
Comment: Global warming is a Theory!?!?! Are you really that lost in the ozone. I suppose you also believe that Intelligent Design is a science and that Santa Clause lives at the North Pole!
Comment: Posted By: woody wizzwell @ 04/08/2008 2:55:24 PM
This person is not smart. "Stop having kids"??? Who is going to pay for your retirement? I am glad you are not having kids, none of your seeds need to be spread.
Comment: You missed my point, Enlarging the population only woesens the problem. How many kids do you have?
How much garbage does your household put out? How many car's do you have or going to have? Your foolish to think that a couple of light bulbs and throwing your pizza boxes into the recycle bin makes up for the impact each of your children put on society and the environment.
I stated "stop having MORE kids", I didn't say stop having kids, be responsible, Does anybody really need more than 2? Children aren't the new fashion accessory. So next time your sitting stuck in traffic think about how you contributed to the congestion your always complain about..
Let me know when you dun gradgiated the 6 grade, then we'll talk.
Comment: If you really want to save the planet.....Stop having more kids! Now, I don't have any kids by choice. One or two kids is a big impact on the environment but people with 4,5,8,10 kids, your lack of any family planning scews everybody. The clothing,food, toy's, ipods, video games, etc. etc. Then they'll need a car and a home and their own family to add to the burden.
Comment: First of all, very strong article. Some mistakes with how electricity is used and produced.
>>If you plug in at night, when most people do, you'll also be using more coal-generated electricity.
Somewhat true. But no. Nuclear power is limited by what we use at nite. I don't want to get into this, but coal has a slow ramp up time, nuclear has a ramp up time in months. And if you're using some coal, this is way better then gas/oil that you would be using during the day, during peak electricity hours.
I'm not promoting coal here, I'm just pointing out that using power at nite is the best chance to increase our regular nuclear consumption. You didn't seem to down on hybrids, but they represent the best chance to use nuclear power on the roads, fuel cells are another discussion, because they require power to create.
Burning coal is increasing the carbon footprint by far more then the driving in the US. But reduction of oil consumption, replacing either by nuclear or coal (in the short term), is a huge bonus for the US military and economy.
Comment: another point in relation to energy saving light bulbs is that they contain mercury, which cause manufacturing and disposal problems down the line. I am torn between energy efficency and poisoning oursleves as well as the environment, with the use of poorly though out "solutions"
Comment: How about fuel cells? Start with water, end with water. No pollution. All ethanol is doing is making farmers even more rich, while at the same time driving up food prices for the rest of us. It takes about the same amount of energy to produce a gallon of ethanol as what it puts out. My brother-in-law farms 3000 acres and he's laughing all the way to the bank on this ethanol scam. If we took all the welfare money farmers and big oil get (they call it subsidies), we could develop fuel cells within a few short years... but that would be too simple and these groups would scream bloody murder...
Comment: Building ethanol making plants close to farms growing corn would cut costs and miles that the corn or what ever would have to be transported. Finding ways to make solar power cheaper so most homes could be retro fitted to run on it's own solar power would also help. I've planted more that 25 trees on the 4 achers I live on. I've also changed all light bulbs in my home to energe savers and cut back on monthly miles driven. I know these are just small things but it should help some.I also recycle.
Comment: 400 mpg trains? I don't know of any train that goes right to the market. Whether wholesale or retail a truck is needed to take the produce to the warehouse, and from there to the store--and commercial trucks get less than 8 mpg. If we look at total costs we would see that compact fluorescents are one of the biggest scams. Problems won't be soved until we have solar power sattelites beaming power to ground-based stations 24/7
Comment: I understand some of this about Global Warming but, Wouldn't matters be worse if we do nothing? I've changed all the light bulbs in my home to energy savers and cut back on my driving. I sold my V8 truck that got 10 MPG and bought a 4 Cylinder Minivan at 32 MPG. Instead of going shopping 6 or 7 times a week I only go once. Its 27 miles one away to Lake City where I go to shop. That should make a difference. I'm one person, What if we all did just that? Wouldn't it help?
Comment: While it is true that producing ethanol from corn is inefficient, both using more fuel to produce than is created and impacting the food market, the way it is approached in this article is misleading. The issue at hand is not the ethanol, but the corn. There are several crops, such as beets and sugarcane, which require far less work in their native habitats to produce with a much greater output than corn, but they have as yet been neglected as viable options. The technology is sound; the approach is what needs work.
Comment: While it is true that producing ethanol from corn is inefficient, both using more fuel to produce than is created and impacting the food market, the way it is approached in this article is misleading. The issue at hand is not the ethanol, but the corn. There are several crops, such as beets and sugarcane, which require far less work in their native habitats to produce with a much greater output than corn, but they have as yet been neglected as viable options. The technology is sound; the approach is what needs work.
Comment: just a quick point on ethanol from corn, it is a bad idea because corn can not produce the same amount of ethanol as saw grass, and I am sure lots of other native plants, that require no fertilization, or extensive farming practices, bottom line is it is a poor canidate in terms of its value to produce ethanol, thereby supporting the idea that gasoline is greener, how about some well informed ideas towards ethanol production that are not based on keeping the fat fatter, and look at another crop choice or variations of crops that are well suited to this problem, from what does it take to grow?, what benefits does it's growing cycle produce (removes co2 from the air, etc.), and how easily processed it is.
Comment: just a quick point on ethanol from corn, it is a bad idea because corn can not produce the same amount of ethanol as saw grass, and I am sure lots of other native plants, that require no fertilization, or extensive farming practices, bottom line is it is a poor canidate in terms of its value to produce ethanol, thereby supporting the idea that gasoline is greener, how about some well informed ideas towards ethanol production that are not based on keeping the fat fatter, and look at another crop choice or variations of crops that are well suited to this problem, from what does it take to grow?, what benefits does it's growing cycle produce (removes co2 from the air, etc.), and how easily processed it is.
Comment: if power plants co-fired with wood pellets instead of coal it would be a big start.instead they raise our utility bills to put in scrubbers.
Comment: If it's that complex, why do anything at all. Why not spend the rest of our lives and our childrens' talking about it AND not doing a thing. While I agree that solving the problem is complex, this kind of article makes people want to give up instead of trying to solve it. Wayt to go.
Comment: All I have to say is EDUCATE YOURSELVES PEOPLE! Everything that the author "debunks" could easily be avoided if people would just educate themselves about "green technology" to find out how to legitimately make a difference. This article is clearing speaking to the uninformed and discouraging any progress of evnironmental responsibility by not providing effective, alternative solutions. The science is in, global climate change is an issue. But whether our not you choose to believe this, what it really comes down to is why would you want to live in a polluted world anyway - pollution IS caused by humans? Educate yourselve and make the difference. I find it hard to believe that if everybody takes on a certain amount of enviornmental responsiblity, that a difference will not be made.
Comment: I am generally in favor of global warming - whether or not based human activities. Try living in Wisconsin during the winter! Anyway, this article sort of proves the point. Individual action will accomplish little or nothing to amelioriate the effects of global warming. It is probably too late (if it were ever possible in the first place) for government action to do so either. So, plan for what's to come (it will be a lot cheaper than trying to stop the weather) and enjoy it. We have technology to deal with any and all negative effects of global warming while we work on real solutions to our energy problems like thermonuclear fusion and hydrogen-powered vehilces.
Comment: So developing countries are using more fuel to grow their industries - any why not? All the developed countries have used way more than their quota when they were in the developing stage. What you forget is that in each of these developing countries, the 3 Rs are way way more common. In most of the deloping countries, people are so poor, they REDUCE, REUSE and RECYCLE EVERY SINGLE THING! The push to move away from plastice bags is much stronger in India and China, than it has ever been or can ever be in the US. Supermarkets don't even give you plastic bags in India anymore!
Which other country keeps the lights on in an entire city (NY) all day and all night (24/7, 365 days a year)! In which country outside the US, do you see incessant use of plastic water bottles, even though they have access to pure clean and FREE drinking water? In no other country, is everything sold in disposable containers that add non-stop to the garbage pile. The amount of waste America generates is probably equal to the entire world put together.
WE ARE DEFINITELY NO SAINTS COMPARED TO ANY DEVELOPING COUNTRY - lets not forget that!
Comment: The BIG problem is that NEUCLEAR power is THE only answer! Our problem is that we let ourselves get scarred into thinking of it as dangerous. Yet the plants in the US have been operating for many thousands of manhours with NO significant problems. Jimmy Carter was the last president to focus on power generation and the nations requirements. Coal is not the answer, oil is deffinately not the answer, it only leaves one clear choice. More nukes, less kooks!
Comment: Why not add to the cost of hybrids the manufacture of the batteries and their transport?
Comment: The greatest folly is the "what you can do" fairy tale...But we shouldn't fool ourselves that individual eco-conscious behavior can prevent dangerous global warming. That will require "serious interventions from governments to change how we produce and use energy,"
EXACTLY. Thank you Sharon, for coming out and saying what people have been dancing around for a long time. Even if every American made x, y and z eco-friendly lifestyle changes, it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans against what's going on at corporations and around the world.
Enough with the neo-liberal "individual social responsibility" crap. We need governments to step in and regulate...before it's too late!
Comment: All Hybrids that I know about use the same technology and can not be plugged in. When accelerating the motor acts as a motor using energy stored in the batteries. When the car is coasting or braking the motor acts as generator and stores the excess energy in the batteries. The car starts with the electric motor turning the gas engine which starts. When coming to a complete stop the gas engine is shut off. When starting from a complete stop the electric motor starts turning first then the gas engine will start. All of the Hybrids I am familiar with get much better mileage than the non Hybrid counter parts.
Comment: This article clearly illustrates the lunacy of the environmentalist wackos who are cramming the global warming hoax down our throats. I fully support reducing consumption, recycling, fuel efficient and/or hybrid cars, and similar programs but I don't support spending trillions of dollars to reverse a natural phenomenon that has been occurring for billions of years. The truth is that the planets temperature fluctuates as part of the planets normal cycle. That is why we had ice ages and glacier melting well before humans had any impact on the earth. Please stop fooling yourselves into thinking that your futile efforts to "saving the planet" from the global warming myth will make up for your guilt due to personal failures on life. Spend your time and money instead on taking care of your own families and the rest of us alone.
Comment: Isn't 99% of the land already cleared for the growth of corn? I know that we've only recently began farming the midwest (retard) To say that carbon emissions produced by corn production is double that of gasoline is entirely ludicrous. Show me the documentation. The thought that one person's actions can't make much of a diffence is aggregiously defeatist. The culminating effects of individuals acting in common is the goal, not that one person alone makes a huge difference. Wow, we have a long way to go. Most importantly, nobody owes the oil companies an apology for anything. You're embarrassing to thinking humans.
Comment: That is because it requires fertilizer which required electrictiy to produce from chemicals and it's transport and dispersion on the fields and the electricity required the irrigate corn which is a water HOG completely inefficent and damaging to the soil. It uses more soil up than most other cultivated plants also. Corn in general is a waste of good land not only for the forementioned reasons, but it's hardly nutritious or digestable. Growing any plant to use for fuel is a bad idea simply for the fact, farming will eventually exhaust soil. The depth of top soil in the midwest has dramatically been reduced since we started farming it. Using it for fuel will only increase that and reduce the food available for people. Anyone else notice an increase in food prices. It's not just caused by high gas and diesel. And a large amount of land is left unfarmed to act as buffers for both wild life and water protection because it reduces and helps clean runoff carrying the fertilizers, insectcides, etc. The higher food value goes due to demand for fuel, the less of this land. It saves millions of tons of pollution from making into lakes and rivers in heavily farmed areas.
Comment: There may be some challenges with emerging alternative technologies. Are we to ignore their potential positive impacts simply because we face a few challenges that may uncertain? Petroleum fuels have caused innumerable negative impacts on our world, environmental, political, and economical. Yet our very existence is completely dependent on it. OPEC countries have been getting rich and funding their negative world agenda on our dollar. We need to look to developing a fuel source and a vehicle that can operate on a cleaner domestic product and free ourselves from this strangle-hold we have ourselves in. Absolutely, there will be hurdles. If we can work to overcome these hurdles today, we can look to excel toward cleaner air, better political ties, and a stronger US economy for our future. But if we shy away from these cleaner alternatives, because of conflicting numbers and opinions, progress will be hindered.
Comment: What is the purpose of an article that's only purpose is the convalude an already convaluded issue? Especially the final solution which was to not bother upgrading your home efficiancy is ludicous, even on a practical level. Check your gas bill and you would think again. The only useful piece of advice in the whole article was to emphasizing reducing over recycling. Perspective is helpful, if it isn't directed only to discourage.
Comment: What is the purpose of an article that's only purpose is the convalude an already convaluded issue? Especially the final solution which was to not bother upgrading your home efficiancy is ludicous, even on a practical level. Check your gas bill and you would think again. The only useful piece of advice in the whole article was to emphasizing reducing over recycling. Perspective is helpful, if it isn't directed only to discourage.
Comment: I'm not sure I understand the point of this article. Why was this written? No solutions were offered, or even better alternatives. I consider myself a Democrat, and even I view this as some sort of weird Communist manifesto that requires the government to act before people can. Instead of debunking all these green myths, Sharon, why don't you go discover some real soluations? Then you could be a real journalist.
Comment: People are all of the following:
Lazy
Unmotivated
Selfish
Economically Stretched
This idea of voluntarily being eco-conscious is a load of bull. Most americans can't afford to go buy that shiny new prius, or to buy only local, natural foods. You talk about people taking first steps, but right now there's no incentive...no carrot at the end of the stick to get people really moving on taking individual action. The government has to create policies, both economic and otherwise to stir not just individuals to act, but corporations and even other nations, by setting a gold standard. Right now the only standard our government is setting is the wrong one...based on corn-based fuels. That's the point the article was trying to make, I think.
Comment: it is difficult to believe that any intelligent person could be taken in by the drivel this author writes fossil fuels are the greatest contributer to civilization and well being of the human race and we should be constantly supporting more development of those resources
Comment: What about the people who, a few years ago, accused the oil companies of conspiratorily discouraging the switch to renewable fuels such as ethanol? If corn-brewed fuel is uneconomic now, how much less appropriate its use was three years ago when oil prices were must lower! When the oil companies claimed that the technology wasn't ready, they were telling the truth.
Before I ever again listen to anything the environmentalists tell me, I want to hear them apologize to the oil companies for the nasty things they said about them for their refusal to promote this alternative fuel.
Comment: Just goes to show how wrong we've got it , if it were'nt for all the swill we've been sold on global warming , we would not be having all this false green tech foisted upon us.
Comment: The concept of ethanol derived from grain has been a joke from the very beginning. Anyone who farms can see the fossil fuel inputs of producing grain. Unfortunately the 'Farmers' have been staying quiet about this, because grain prices are on the increase for a change. Plus, most 'Farmers' are now agribusiness corporations where the decision makers never get behind the tractor wheel. They spend their time lobbying Congress, maybe.
However! Making ethanol from other cellulose, that is non-foodstuff, makes sense. It is just not as easy and profitable for ethanol producers, so they haven't offered it.
As to all remedies for the energy crisis, the solution will be in developing a budget for consumption and emissions, and modifying our behavior to reduce usage. Like smaller more efficient homes. public transport, and leaving some of that junk on the shelves at WalMart.
I like the idea of each of us leaving our car parked for one day a week, and finding ways to live well without it.
Comment: The concept of ethanol derived from grain has been a joke from the very beginning. Anyone who farms can see the fossil fuel inputs of producing grain. Unfortunately the 'Farmers' have been staying quiet about this, because grain prices are on the increase for a change. Plus, most 'Farmers' are now agribusiness corporations where the decision makers never get behind the tractor wheel. They spend their time lobbying Congress, maybe.
However! Making ethanol from other cellulose, that is non-foodstuff, makes sense. It is just not as easy and profitable for ethanol producers, so they haven't offered it.
As to all remedies for the energy crisis, the solution will be in developing a budget for consumption and emissions, and modifying our behavior to reduce usage. Like smaller more efficient homes. public transport, and leaving some of that junk on the shelves at WalMart.
I like the idea of each of us leaving our car parked for one day a week, and finding ways to live well without it.
Comment: Just goes to show how wrong we've got it ! If it was'nt for all this swill about global warming , we would'nt have to sift through all this swill about what is being passed off as green? tech !
Comment: Just when I am starting to see personal changes in friends and family, you spout off that one person can 't make a difference. Thanks for taking the movement back 10 years. The Government is going to do nothing if the people aren't demanding a change. While I admit ethanol has its opponants, why don't you base some comments on facts?
Comment: The author is saying that the difference one person makes, even when added up with all of the other individuals acting, is not enough to change course. Naturally it makes you feel good to be "green", go for it. Chances are, you'll save money, energy, and make a difference in your own life. Unfortunately, it's just. not. enough. Global capitalism has seen to that. Just look at developing nations. Even with our SUVs, we seem like saints compared to them. Who's out there inspiring all of those folks to go out and buy CFLs, hybrids, and solar panels?
