Bio-Fuels

Bio-Fuels: Brought to you by the feel-good environmentalist. Bio-Fuels: increasing global warming, killing the oceans, destroying the rain forest, starving the hungry.

Top Stories

Jane Fonda Endorses Barack Obama;

There Goes the Crossover Vote.

Jane Fonda, the actress and ardent anti-Vietnam War advocate who visited North Vietnam during those hostilities, has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president.

There were no formal ceremonies for the endorsement. In fact, the Obama campaign may just be learning about the actress's approval now as word spreads like lit gunpowder via the Internet. (link)

My Comment: You should not judge a candidate by the people who endorse him. You can't always choose your supporters. Apparently Obama didn't seek this endorsement and if he is smart he will ignore it.

Given that at this point in the race there are only three choices, it is not surprising that Jane Fonda would endorse Obama. Of the three, Obama is the one promising an immediate pull out from Iraq and damn the consequences. I can see how that view would appeal to Jane Fonda.

There are people with whom I have a difference of opinion but still respect. There are very few public people who I truly detest. Jane Fonda is at the top of that short list. Most celebrities who say or do stupid things, I think should simply be ignored. Jane Fonda, however, I cannot forgive for her betrayal of America, her stab in the back of U.S servicemen, and her cheerleading for the North Vietnamese Communist.

I am generally a peace-loving, non-violent, forgiving type of guy. I hope no harm comes to Jane Fonda. However, if a deranged Vietnam vet was determined to assassinate a public figure and could not be talked out of it, and he was asking for nominations, I would not be disappointed if someone nominated Jane Fonda.

Top Stories

Ethanol Worse than Gas in Causing Global Warming

“Politicians and Big Business are pushing biofuels like corn-based ethanol as alternative to oil. All they’re doing is driving up food price and making global warming worse- and your paying for it.” These sentences are on the cover of the most recent issue of Time magazine introducing an article entitled The Clean Energy Myth, written by Michael Grunwald.

Grunwald, who is a senior correspondent for Time magazine and has written extensively on environmental issues, examines the consequences of the increased use of ethanol and evaluates ethanol’s effect on global warming.

In the past decade, the US has quadrupled the production of ethanol and the recently passed energy bill mandates another five-fold increase. Grunwald quotes studies that show that the actual effect of the increase of the use of ethanol is that “it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it.”

One way this is happening is that the push to produce more ethanol is resulting in clearing of the Amazon rain forest. When the rain forest is destroyed, the act of deforestation releases carbon emission and this deforestation accounts for 20% of all current carbon emissions.

In addition to making global warming worse, in the process we are also destroying the most ecologically diverse places on the earth at an alarmingly accelerated rate, not only in the Amazon but also in Indonesia and other places in the world.

Another point Grunwald makes is that producing fuel from corn provides only a modest gain in net fuel. It takes almost as much energy to create a BTU of energy from corn as is produced.

Other points he the article makes are these:
Only sugarcane-based ethanol is efficient enough to cut carbon emissions by more than it takes to produce the fuel. The rest of the “green fuels” are net carbon emitters.
The U. S. leads the world in corn and soybean production, but if 100% of both crops were turned into fuel, it produces only enough fuel to replace 20% of the gas consumption.

The author is unequivocal that “biofules aren’t part of the solution at all. They’re part of the problem.”

How in the world could we be so irrational as to be mandating ethanol in order to deal with global warming? That is like an alcoholic who switches from beer to bourbon to deal with his drinking problem. The evidence is clear, that as the author says, “we’re better off growing food and drilling for oil.”

It is not as if the truth about ethanol was not known before the new Congress passed the recent energy bill. Rational environmentalist knew this all along but ethanol is trendy and the feel-good environmentalist want it. The rational environmentalists are too few and too timid to counter the feel-good environmentalist and the activist of the environmental movement. The environmental community, with few exceptions, celebrated the passing of the recent energy bill by the newly elected Democratic Congress.

It is disheartening that we are pursuing a policy that is making global warming worse in the name of fighting global warming, but most politicians are willing to give stupid people what they want. The fact that the nations first Presidential nominating contest is in the corn-growing state of Iowa probably plays a roll in the popularity of ethanol also. Candidates for President, of both parties, pander to the Iowa voters by endorsing ethanol. In 2000, John McCain was the only politician with the courage to speak the truth about the folly of ethanol, but apparently McCain wants to be President more than he wants to tell the truth, so this time around he also jumped on the ethanol bandwagon.

I don’t see much hope for curtailing global warming. Everywhere you look, the only news about global warming is bad news. Lofty goals are not met, and the rate of carbon emission continues to grow. Rationality on the issue seems to be in short supply. On the one hand, you have the global warming deniers and on the other hand you have the feel-good enviournmentalist who are happy as long as we do “something” even it that something is worse than doing nothing.

Top Stories

Save Energy, Save Money, Save the Planet

The following exchange is from a posting on a yahoo chat group I belong to called "Climate Concern." Climate Concern is a good group for anyone concerned about the issue of global warming and environmental issues. The link to this group is to the left under "Conversation/Groups." A lot of rational, informed people contribute to this group and there are lot of interesting exchanges and links. Rather than write my original post, I am simply reposted the following exchange. Rod

Save Energy, Save Money, Save the Planet

I watched a wonderful program on PBS where a group in Cambridge made energy efficiency easy and widespread. You can watch it online from the link below:
Save Energy, Save Money, Save the Planet
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/413/index.html

Could a new effort to fight global warming save money and create jobs at the same time? NOW looks at a city-wide plan in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to make all its buildings more energy efficient. Up to 80 percent of emissions in many urban cities comes from buildings. Cambridge hopes that this unprecedented effort to green its buildings will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent in just five years, the equivalent of taking 33,000 cars off the road. If every major city in America took the same approach, it would have a significant impact on the carbon footprint of the United States —and it would generate tens of millions of new "

The Cambridge Energy Alliance, a nonprofit group, will help clients cut their energy use 15-30 percent, which translates into a lower utility bill. The Alliance will then help clients secure loans to pay for the building retrofits, loans designed to pay themselves off by the savings on those utility bills. Retrofitting thousands of buildings could also create a new green job market in Cambridge. It's a bold new experiment, but the Alliance hopes to become a national model that puts green thinking on display, as well as more green in people's pockets. Will this entrepreneurial effort bring new converts to the environmental movement?

Related Links:Cambridge Energy Alliance
U.S. Green Building Council: LEED Green Building Rating System
North Carolina State University: Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency
U.S. Dept. of Energy: A Consumer's Guide to Energy Efficieny and Renewable Energy
U.S. Dept. of Energy: Energy Efficient Building Technologies Program

Bob

Bob, I saw the same program it was great! I am a conservative who believes global warming is real. Empty symbolic gestures will not solve the problem of global warming. Cajoling or command and control will not do it. Trying to change peoples hearts will not do it. If preaching and trying to change hearts worked, after 2000 years of Christianity, Christian countries would not need policemen. To address global warming we must apply sound economic principles. This is a program that uses sound economics. The bottom line works. Those environmentalist who deny the truth of economics are no better than those who deny the truth of global warming. This program in Cambridge is the kind of program than can work because it makes economic sense. The consumer can do good for the world while doing good for their pocketbook. I am reposting your post on my blog. I was going to post this info anyway, but you have done the work for me.

Thanks, Rod

Top Stories

Poor People and the Economically Disadvantaged

Income challenged. Low income. Economically disadvantaged. Underprivileged. When writing a grant or in a formal meeting with other professionals I use some of these terms. In conversation, I usually use the term “poor" people, although the word "poor" does seem to be out of favor. I like the term “poor people”, or "the poor." "Poor" is a good honest word. It is simply descriptive; it is not derogatory. We know what it means. Why use two bigger words when one simple small word says what you want to say?

Top Stories

Low-income Housing and Affordable Housing

I am a housing counselor and for about the last 15 years I have served as the Director of Housing Services for the Woodbine Community Organization, a HUD approved non-profit housing counseling agency. Our organization belongs to a loosely associated organization called the Affordable Housing Forum. This organization includes developers, representatives of government agencies, realtors, mortgage companies, banks, non-profit organizations, and advocacy organizations. Anyone interested in the field of affordable housing is welcome to join. The organization serves a valuable purpose in educating those in the affordable housing field about new developments, in providing networking opportunities and in providing a forum to address the issues that surrounding our field.

For many years, the organization was know as the Low-income Housing Forum and then a few years ago, it was felt that there was a stigma associated with “Low-income housing” and the name was changed to “Affordable Housing”. I didn’t feel strongly about the issue, so did not take a position on the name change, but thought Low-income Housing Forum was a perfectly good name. Maybe there was some logic to changing the name, however. A lot of the public think “public housing” or “projects” when they hear the words “low-income housing” and our organization deals with concerns that range from homelessness to the issues associated with the barriers and policies that needlessly increase the cost of the development of almost all housing.

Just wait. I predict that in a few more years there will be a stigma associated with the term “affordable housing” and we will change the name to “Modest-income Housing Forum” or “Housing Challenges Forum” or some other name which does not yet have a stigma.

Top Stories

Retarded People and the Mentally Challenged

When I was growing up, it was not uncommon to hear people refer to the “mentally challenged” as “slow.” Another term that was sometimes used was “backward.” Both terms seem like a polite way of referring to someone with a mental deficiency. Some older people would say someone was “touched”, whatever that means. I don’t know why it became unacceptable to use those term.

For many years those with a mental deficiency were referred to as “retarded” then that term fell out of favor. “Retarded” simply means delayed; I don’t know why that term became offensive. Sometime the mentally challenged are referred to as “developmentally delayed” but I think that term is normally used for children, who could possibly catch up. Another term that is sometimes used is “mentally disabled”, but I am not sure if that is an OK term to use. I assume the current politically correct term is “mentally challenged” unless it changed and no one told me. I know some people use the term “special” or simply “disabled” or “challenged” but those terms don’t differentiate between a metal condition and a physical condition so they don’t tell you very much.

While I find a lot of political correctness downright silly, I usually comply with the prevailing terminology, but I wait until it is the prevailing term and am never in the forefront of the change in a terminology. I would rather people listen to what I have to say rather than be distracted by my use of an out-dated term. I think the reason the terminology has to change so often, is that as soon as people realize the new term means the same thing as the old term a stigma becomes associated with the new term and it has to be changed again.

Top Stories

Colored People and People of Color

If people of color, find the term “colored people” offensive then I won’t use it. I don’t want to intentionally offend anyone. That is just the kind of sensitive nice guy I am. However, could someone explain to me why the term “colored people” is considered impolite if not downright racist, while the term “people of color” is considered dignified and respectful?

Top Stories

Gay 4 Obama

Another funny video.

Top Stories

Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say

By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, March 10, 2008; A01

The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades. (link)

Comment: Hey, I have an idea! Let’s turn the lights off for one hour to show we really care about this.

Top Stories

Turn Out the Lignts,

Another Meaningless Empty Symbolic Gesture.

SYDNEY (AFP) - Twenty-six major cities around the world are expected to turn off the lights on major landmarks, plunging millions of people into darkness to raise awareness about global warming, organisers said. Cities officially involved in 'Earth Hour' include Aalborg, Aarhus, Adelaide, Atlanta, Bangkok, Brisbane, Canberra, Chicago, Christchurch, Copenhagen, Darwin, Dublin, Hobart, Manila, Melbourne, Montreal, Odense, Ottawa, Perth, Phoenix, San Francisco, Suva, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto and Vancouver. (link)

Comment: Liberals love the meaningless empty symbolic gesture. Turn off your lights and show how much you “care.” Show your solidarity with others who “care.” This feel-good measure can make you feel like you are “doing something." The only possible reason for something like this is to raise awareness. Mr Friends, awareness has been raised! It is time to get behind policy changes that will actually do something. Showing how environmentally pious you are is useless. I will be keeping the lights on.

Top Stories

Hillary Wasn't Lying!

Bosnia gunfire footage discovered...

Top Stories