Lance
Sam James
Josh Adams
fooser
jslef
Terry Woods
Ryan
davenate
Mike O
Brian McConnell
Brian LePort
halldg
Reading on Walden Bookstore
Tyler D.
Hugo
Jon
goesdownbitter
jack3566
ccscoachadams
killerbuffalo
Garnet SpyThe drive for being ‘green’, especially for using renewable resources, often forgets that nothing operates in a vacuum. Low-energy fluorescent lightbulbs contain mercury and become a toxic waste nightmare. Wind farms slaughter birds by the thousands. The batteries used in that Prius assure that the supposed ‘green’ car is actually more environmentally damaging than a Hummer. Biolfuels result in more greenhouse gas production, not less. But the latest issue, that of ethanol and the federal government’s financial incentives for ethanol production, is likely to be the most costly.
Thanks to major government subsidy programs, more and more farm country in the U.S. is being converted to corn production and more of the existing corn is being used for ethanol production. The highly predictable result: Cereal grains of all forms have spiked 41% in price in just 6 months. This is not only starting to show up on grocery store shelves, but is heading us for a humanitarian nightmare as food agencies around the world are having to significantly scale back.
How real is this? To me, very real. The charity I support in Uganda has lost the support from the World Food Program; a combination of the increased costs and flooding in Northeast Uganda resulted in WFP shutting down their aid everywhere except the flooded regions. The organization was highly dependent on that food; kids I personally know stand a very real chance of starving over this. Graves may be ecologically friendly, but I doubt that was the intent of the ‘renewable resource’ gang and their government enablers.
If you’d personally like to help fill in the gap (and I’ve personally done all I can, in that regard), you can be a real help to these kids.
Update: fixed link to Prius vs. Hummer in terms of environmental damage
Filed under: Science
[...] ainsa erandina on kiidetud etanooli tootmist. Mike Openshaw aga kirjeldab blogis The Political Inquirer, kuidas etanooli tootmine biokütuseks valusalt tagasi lööb. USA-s on käivitatud laiaulatuslikud [...]
Ethanol is basically a scam, imho, but pointing that out and arguing against all renewable resources are two different things. In the long run, how can you argue against renewable resources? By definition, everything else is scheduled to run out.
Not arguing against them, just that all considerations must be assessed. Anyone who advocates turning foodstuffs into fuel should really consider what the loss of foodstuff entails. It’s just common sense.
I’d advocated working the other side of the equation long before the latest energy cost spike. Buut that takes admitting our personal habits are a major part of the issue.
[...] The Sometimes Catastrophic Nature of ‘Renewability’ « The Political Inquirer The Sometimes Catastrophic Nature of ‘Renewability’ « The Political Inquirer [...]
This whole thing just pisses me off. The fact that the production of renewable source is doing the opposite of what the end result was set out t do. The means does not justify the end! I wish people understood this.
This article is pretty helpful in showing me how much the “behind the scene” stuff really matters. The fact that we’re never told upfront about it boils my blood. Everyone just worries about their profit and what not. Why are we so immensely selfish and shortsighted? I really don’t get that.
The thing with Toyota, that’s just plain, downright irresponsible. For them to purchase nickel, they should take some responsibility since they’re the one supplying the demand. I understand that we can’t really avoid mining nickel at all, but we can sure try to cut down on how much of it we use in manufacturing. Honestly, I’m at the point that my faith in corporation’s ability to actually make this place a better one a millimeter from falling off the edge. Who are we kidding to think they would do anything for the greater good? If it costs too much, it’s not worth it!
Yeah, there are probably other companies out there that do care and has done good things. I feel they are too far and few in between…that or it’s because there’s so much focus on the negatives (no wonder we’re constantly unhappy).
The amount of nickel required is simply a matter of physics for that type of battery. The materials required are not governed by the evilness of corporations, but the laws of natural science. Your complaint sounds like there is an ability to wave a magic wand and all the energy I care to use will just appear, but corporations don’t allow that wand to be waved bacause of profit motives. It simply isn’t that way.
‘Taking responsibility for the nickel’ would be simple; tack another $5,000 to the price of the Prius and use that for reclamation. Problem is, the American consumers then wouldn’t be buying the Prius.
mifuyne; do you own any stocks or mutual funds? If so, you can- as a corporate owner- blame yourself as well for ‘evil corporate profiteering’.
This post has some correct information, such as the fact that ethanol is not sustainable. But it does not make the point that there is anything ‘catastrophic’ about renewability.
But we should draw the important distinction between ’sustainability’ and ‘renewabiliity’ –not everything that is renewable is sustainable. Given the choice, always chose sustainability over reneweability.
Incidently, your link re: the Prius is broken; I would be very interested in reviewing that information, if you have it available, please fix the link. I doubt very much that a Prius could be as damaging as a Hummer, sounds like mis-information put out by the Hummer manufacturer.
I agree; sustainability is key, as long as it is coupled with full life cycle environmental impact. Even in solar cells, this is important. The rare earth component availability and the energy to produce the cells themselves are not insignificant and must be considered.
The final solution for adequate power is, naturally, fusion. But we aren’t there yet and not likely to get there if we don’t re-invest in the nuclear technology the environmentalists drove us away from in the first place.
I fixed the link on the Prius; it is the full life cycle aspects that hurt it.
No matter how you want to spin this there are a few absolutes which part of the article mis-states “Biofuels result in more greenhouse gas production.”
- BioDiesel and Ethanol are considered carbon neutral in that they release the carbon that the plant matter captured from the environment. This is a huge improvement over Fossil fuels which are releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere.
- Any carbon used to fertilize, plant, harvest, transport, convert(oils starches to fuel), is a net increase of CO2 if it also isn’t from Biodiesel or ethanol.
- Any land or water that is used to create the oil/starches has an opportunity cost.
When you look at the problems associated with Global Warming(whether that be a natural occurring event or human induced) and all the complications associated with various energy solutions, one solution rises head and shoulders above the rest. BioDiesel and Ethanol from Algae.
Problem: Rising Sea Levels
Algae: Store water in closed loop systems to grow algae.
Problem: Crop derived fuels use land useful for food production
Algae: Does not require fertile land. Desert works just fine.
Problem: Lack of fresh water
Algae: Saltwater or sewage water works great
The best scenario is to capture CO2 output from power generation or other factories through algae filters.
I don’t hold any mutual funds. I didn’t call the corporations evil, I say they are irresponsible and I meant to imply they’re ignorant.
My point is if it costs less environmentally (and financially) to make a Hummer than the Prius, why not just stick with that until there’s a better procedure to making a hybrid? Why go through the trouble of doing this despite the fact that it costs more? I’m all for technological advancement, but I don’t see the point if the means hurts us more than it help us. Yeah, it helps to test these things too, but is there really any benefit to to selling them to the masses? The questions aren’t rhetorical, I really would like to know what’s the point of releasing these things into the public despite the fact that it costs more in different aspects?
The idea of using algae sounds reasonable to me…so then it begs the question of why isn’t it being done now? Is the technology required for the entire process too expensive and the output just isn’t good enough to invest in?
[...] just lost over a fifth of the food crops in Iowa due to flooding, and, as I’ve pointed out before, there are massive consequences already ongoing from shifting a third of our corn to burn in our [...]