Scroll down an inch or two to get to the meat and potatoes of the articles.
Vegetarians can scroll down an inch or two to get to the tofu and brown rice.
Just for fun: watch the 2 lines of header above and press your F5 key
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Ethanol - Misunderstandings (and John McBush)
In April 2008 I took John
McBush to task for his unwarranted image as a maverick. Now I will correct him on an error of fact that he makes. To be fair, it is a mistake that many, many people make - even people who think of themselves as environmentalists.
Before he was a candidate for the nomination to run for president as a republican,
GW McCain said "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve our air quality."
That was then.
But, in time for the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, "I do not support subsidies, but I support ethanol and I think it is a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse reduction effects"
White man speak with forked tongue.
Worse, his knowledge of science is faulty.
"ethanol ... greenhouse reduction effects". Wrong! Where, oh, where to begin?
Everyone take notes. There will be a quiz on this.
- Ethanol is a carbon-based source of energy. For you technically minded, its chemical formula is C2H5OH.
- ANY and EVERY Carbon-based fuel releases energy AND CO2 (Also known as Carbon Dioxide). CO2 is a major component of our greenhouse gas problem.
- The "C2" part is the Carbon component of ethanol.
- "H5" is Hydrogen
- "OH" means that a part of the ethanol molecule is a hydroxide, and consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen
- The nice thing about the H and OH portions of ethanol is that when burned , as in an internal combustion engine, the by-product includes water - that's the sort-of good news. The bad news is that water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
- Much worse - in terms of greenhouse gases - is that when the carbon in ethanol is oxidized (when it burns), it releases energy and forms Carbon Dioxide.
- In other words, when you burn ethanol to release the energy contained therein, you release two greenhouse gases. There is a Law of Nature that covers the topic. It is inevitable.
- Ethanol-as-fuel is a hot topic. But when politicians address Ethanol-as-fuel, they are referring Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn, which translates into votes in the Farm Belt and campaign funds from such agribiz giants as Archer-Daniels-Midland and Cargill. They want you to believe that Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn is a good idea, when the real issue is getting elected/re-elected.
Ethanol-as-fuel is probably a good idea. Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn is not just a bad idea, it's worse: it's a distraction from real issues regarding energy.
In today's agriculture, corn is expensive to grow. From a financial viewpoint, it requires good soil, huge amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, and massive fuel-guzzling farm equipment.
From any energy viewpoint, all of those items (except the soil) require petroleum to produce, transport, and use.
In today's refinery system, corn is an expensive raw material for producing an energy source. It requires a lot of energy input, e.g., heat - to produce the ethanol.
All things considered, it requires about 3 gallons of fuel to create, transport, and deliver 4 gallons of fuel at the gas pump. And - those 4 gallons of fuel do not produce as many miles as 4 gallons of petroleum-based fuel.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. As corn production is diverted to ethanol production, corn is taken from the food supply. That causes food prices (and feed prices for livestock) to increase. Reducing the corn supply also impacts other parts of the food network. We are beginning to see shortages and price hikes of food other than corn. For example, if grain production resources were diverted to corn production, the price of wheat will shoot up; in turn, prices of wheat-based foods will skyrocket (you heard it here first).
Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn just doesn't make economic or ecological sense.
Do we need alternative sources of energy? Absolutely. BUT! Everyone needs to understand that
- substituting one carbon-based energy source for another is NOT a solution to the critical greenhouse gas / global warming problems that we face
- among Ethanol-as-fuel endeavors, ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn benefits politicians and agribiz. It does little, if anything for the rest of us.
- While any ethanol production will help reduce oil imports, it is more than anything else, a distraction from the pursuit of REAL energy solutions.
How do we solve our growing energy, dependence on foreign oil, and pollution (greenhouse gas) problems?
- We can't fall into the trap of seeking a panacea - a one size fits all - approach.
- Our biggest - best - easiest first step is conservation; we need a comprehensive national program to use less and recycle more.
- Make better use of "local" oil. Consider this: 40% of US oil production is exported. Reigning that in won't solve the greenhouse gas problem, but it would most certainly put a dent in oil imports. How can it make sense to export oil and import expensive oil that comes with strings attached. There are serious geopolitical issues involved in being at the mercy of people who despise us and use our money (money that we paid for foreign oil) to support terrorists who will most certainly attack us repeatedly.
- Develop good alternative sources of energy - preferably sources that don't carry baggage such as greenhouse gas production and destruction of the natural environment. Interestingly, developing and producing these alternative energy sources will help in another big way: it will encourage entrepreneurship and will create new jobs right here in the good ol' US of A.
Labels: alternative energy, carbon dioxide, carbon-based fuel, co2, conservation, ethanol, maverick, mcbush, mccain, misconception, misunderstanding
Don't forget to visit BlackBox, the best of tech talk (in plain English), and please read/honor the legal stuff in the left-hand pane of this page
Saturday, April 12, 2008
McCain's Expediency Express
[ the folks at the Boston Globe must have read yesterday's post ]The Boston Globe April 13, 2008
'THE CORE of John McCain's appeal as a candidate has always been his reputation for taking positions that offend special interests. This newspaper endorsed McCain in the Republican presidential primary late last year because - to quote ourselves - he "actually levels with voters even at significant political expense." But as his quixotic candidacy grew into the Republican nomination, McCain's "straight-talk express" started going off the rails.'
The Globe's editorial goes on to say pretty much what I said yesterday: McBush's image is unwarranted. Granted they said it more succinctly and eloquently.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/04/13/mccains_expediency_express/
Labels: maverick, mcbush, mccaon, straight talk
Don't forget to visit BlackBox, the best of tech talk (in plain English), and please read/honor the legal stuff in the left-hand pane of this page
Friday, April 11, 2008
Maverick, My Ass!
If one reads a newspaper or news magazine, or if one pays attention to the broadcast media, or wastes time on the internet....
Everyone with an opinion
[ and just as with certain body orifices - everyone seems to have one ] seems to think that
John McBush -
George W. McCain - is a maverick. In January and February of 2008 alone, McCain was called a "maverick" more than 1,300 times in newspapers and on television. [ Source: Free Ride, by David Brock http://www.amazon.com/Free-Ride-John-McCain-Media/dp/0307279405 ]
Maverick \Mav"er*ick\, n. In the southwestern part of the united States, a bullock or heifer that has not been branded, and is unclaimed or wild. In other words, he is not beholden to anyone but himself. He doesn't follow the party line, yada, yada, yada.That's bullock puckey.. or heifer pies. You choose.
At this point I should mention that I have always admired the former John McCain - the one who still had a soul. In 2000 I voted for him in the primaries. I admire anyone who has honorably performed military service. In McCain's case, he was also a POW - one who was tortured because of his service to the USA. That makes him a big, big man. But along the way he kept his military/POW stature, but traded his soul for the votes of the least among us.
In his 20 years in the Senate, Bush Lite has voted with his party more than 80% of the time in 17 of 20 those years. Compared to most of the lockstep Republicans - who religiously follow orders 99.9999% of the time - G.W. McCain is somewhat out of the ordinary. But "branded, unclaimed, or wild"? Hardly. His brands and wild ways pale in comparison to the defiance of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Spector... If we were going to hand out awards for being political mavericks of the Republican persuation, those people (and others) would be in line way ahead of McBush.
He has taken some famously contrary stands:
- He opposed the use of torture - for any reason
- He railed against Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy - BECAUSE they favored the richest few
- He co-authored [ with 'liberal' Democrat Russ Feingold ] the law for campaign finance reform
- He was an advocate for Mother Earth and her global warming problem.
- He supported regulations on the marketing of tobacco.
What a risk! The public already overwhelmingly supported those. Before getting too excited about his untamed style, consider how many times he has changed his mind on issues
after he decided to take another shot at being President:
- Torture? Now torture is OK.
- A statehouse displaying a Confederate flag? He used to call it a symbol of bigotry and repression. Now it represents a state's heritage. [ Um, John... that 'heritage' is one of bigotry and repression ]
- Religious hatred?According to McBush, back then Jerry Falwell was an "agent of intolerance." Jerry Falwell - and those religious wingnuts like him - became "inspirational." [ Yes, I know that Jerry Falwell is dead. Before he died, McCain publicly physically and orally embraced Falwell. ] Now he welcomes the endorsements of the most radical and intolerant "in the name of Christ" wackos. His 'spritual advisor' proclaims that the USA was founded, in part, to destroy Islam. [ Never mind that the Western world had ignored those backwards "moos-lums" since the end of the Crusades - May 18, 1291 ]
- Tax cuts for the wealthiest 5% of Americans? Then, bad. Now, why, those are good for the economy. He again struggles with history. ALL of our prosperous periods BEGAN with tax increases. I'm not saying that tax hikes are a good thing, but tax cuts for the wealthy have never improved the economy. Did I say NEVER!? Yes, NEVER!!
- Campaign reform? He favored it for several years. The law that manages our reformed campaign financing - there's a reason why it's called "McCain-Feingold". Guess what the reason is. Fast forward to now: when his 2007-2008 campaign was struggling to raise money, he favored public funding of campaigns. However, his fund-raising is no longer stuck in neutral, and he wants to weasel his way around the CONTRACT that he signed to use taxpayer money to run for office and to ignore HIS rules about how that system works. That's a triple-whammy: he turned his back on campaign reform, personal accountability, and respect for the laws of the land. Maybe Bush Redux thinks that's what mavericks do.
- Ethanol made from Iowa corn? "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve our air quality." That was then. But, in time for the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, "I do not support subsidies, but I support ethanol and I think it is a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse reduction effects"
- Women's health: McCain once said, "In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade." Now he says simply "I'm Pro-Life". He has therefore aligned himself with 'Pro-life', of course, is a code word for 'No abortion, no matter what the circumstances. No death with dignity (preventing the terminally ill from chosing when, where, and how to die). No pregnancy prevention such as sex education.' In many cases the 'pro-lifers' tack on 'No contraception.' and 'No to ANY expression of natural human sexuality except "man gets pleasure/woman gets pregnant"'.
Those qualify as pandering in my book. A real maverick stands on principle. A maverick's positions don't shift with political expediency. G.W. McCain's (in)famous "Straight Talk Express" isn't going so straight anymore.
Labels: bush lite, campaign finance reform, confederate flag, expediency, falwell, free ride, george w. mccain, heritage, maverick, mcbush, mccain-feingold, pandering, racism, torture, wingnut
Don't forget to visit BlackBox, the best of tech talk (in plain English), and please read/honor the legal stuff in the left-hand pane of this page
Archives
December 2007
January 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]