| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » "It's time to scrap the ethanol boondoggle"
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| calderhome@yahoo.com |
 Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:02 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
It's also important to scrap the hydrogen boondoggle,
and the absolutely insane compressed air boondoggle,
but I doubt we'll have much luck there either.
The 'Pol's need their porkbarrels y'know, otherwise they
might be forced to seek honest work. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| zzbunker@netscape.net |
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 18, 9:32 pm, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
Quote: calderh...@yahoo.com wrote:
It's time to scrap the ethanol boondoggle
"Government-funded conversion to "biofuels" such as ethanol is
scarcely helping with energy efficiency and is exacerbating a global
food crisis. It's time for Canada to reverse course on this failed
approach."
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?...
Liberals want laws and Taxes and they want to dive in head first, before
they test the water to see if it's boiling.
Liberals want endless virtual nullsets, since the only thing
more energy moronic than a liberal is a derivative liberal.
Since they're the cheerleaders for the liberal sycophant mimes.
Quote:
Multiple approaches to finding alternative fuels is a much better approach..
I don't believe in Global warming, but I think multiple sources of
energy would help stomp out the terrorists. Stopping money from going to
the Middle east can't hurt us. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rob Dekker |
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<calderhome@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f6e5aef8-edb8-474b-9cfa-261960b62d21@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Quote: It's time to scrap the ethanol boondoggle
"Government-funded conversion to "biofuels" such as ethanol is
scarcely helping with energy efficiency and is exacerbating a global
food crisis. It's time for Canada to reverse course on this failed
approach."
Why am I not surprised about this statement coming out of Canada ?
Maybe because without ethanol, Canada's tar sands will have little competition in the post Peak Oil era... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Poetic Justice |
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
Liberals want laws and Taxes and they want to dive in head first, before
they test the water to see if it's boiling.
Multiple approaches to finding alternative fuels is a much better approach.
I don't believe in Global warming, but I think multiple sources of
energy would help stomp out the terrorists. Stopping money from going to
the Middle east can't hurt us. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| chemist |
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 19, 4:42 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
Quote: On Apr 18, 9:32 pm, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
calderh...@yahoo.com wrote:
It's time to scrap the ethanol boondoggle
"Government-funded conversion to "biofuels" such as ethanol is
scarcely helping with energy efficiency and is exacerbating a global
food crisis. It's time for Canada to reverse course on this failed
approach."
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?...
Liberals want laws and Taxes and they want to dive in head first, before
they test the water to see if it's boiling.
Liberals want endless virtual nullsets, since the only thing
more energy moronic than a liberal is a derivative liberal.
Since they're the cheerleaders for the liberal sycophant mimes.
Multiple approaches to finding alternative fuels is a much better approach.
I don't believe in Global warming, but I think multiple sources of
energy would help stomp out the terrorists. Stopping money from going to
the Middle east can't hurt us.
The Earth is cooling. We should not use food producing land
to keep SUV's on the road when the cooling climate will
reduce agricultural production.
CO2 follows temperature when the global temperature
falls far enough it will fall also. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul E. Lehmann |
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
chemist wrote:
Quote: On Apr 19, 4:42 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net"
zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:32 pm, Poetic Justice
@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
calderh...@yahoo.com wrote:
It's time to scrap the ethanol boondoggle
"Government-funded conversion to "biofuels"
such as ethanol is scarcely helping with
energy efficiency and is exacerbating a
global
food crisis. It's time for Canada to
reverse course on this failed approach."
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?...
Liberals want laws and Taxes and they want to
dive in head first, before they test the
water to see if it's boiling.
Liberals want endless virtual nullsets,
since the only thing more energy moronic
than a liberal is a derivative liberal.
Since they're the cheerleaders for the
liberal sycophant mimes.
Multiple approaches to finding alternative
fuels is a much better approach.
I don't believe in Global warming, but I
think multiple sources of energy would help
stomp out the terrorists. Stopping money from
going to the Middle east can't hurt us.
The Earth is cooling. We should not use food
producing land to keep SUV's on the road when
the cooling climate will reduce agricultural
production. CO2 follows temperature when the
global temperature falls far enough it will fall
also.
Heard on the financial news that some countries
are already starting to reduce food exports.
Perhaps they know something we don't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| The Ghost In The Machine |
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In sci.environment, Paul E. Lehmann
<someone@anywhere.com>
wrote
on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:24:32 -0400
<y5mdnaXG4f3neZTVnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@comcast.com>:
Quote: chemist wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:42 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net"
zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:32 pm, Poetic Justice
@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
calderh...@yahoo.com wrote:
It's time to scrap the ethanol boondoggle
"Government-funded conversion to "biofuels"
such as ethanol is scarcely helping with
energy efficiency and is exacerbating a
global
food crisis. It's time for Canada to
reverse course on this failed approach."
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?...
Liberals want laws and Taxes and they want to
dive in head first, before they test the
water to see if it's boiling.
Liberals want endless virtual nullsets,
since the only thing more energy moronic
than a liberal is a derivative liberal.
Since they're the cheerleaders for the
liberal sycophant mimes.
Multiple approaches to finding alternative
fuels is a much better approach.
I don't believe in Global warming, but I
think multiple sources of energy would help
stomp out the terrorists. Stopping money from
going to the Middle east can't hurt us.
The Earth is cooling. We should not use food
producing land to keep SUV's on the road when
the cooling climate will reduce agricultural
production. CO2 follows temperature when the
global temperature falls far enough it will fall
also.
Heard on the financial news that some countries
are already starting to reduce food exports.
Perhaps they know something we don't.
They know their people are starving and are taking
steps to ensure that whatever food they grow gets
into their own mouths... ;-)
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mcs |
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1bb75b3a-a875-4774-9b0e-9594f4853fdc@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 18, 9:32 pm, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
Quote: calderh...@yahoo.com wrote:
It's time to scrap the ethanol boondoggle
"Government-funded conversion to "biofuels" such as ethanol is
scarcely helping with energy efficiency and is exacerbating a global
food crisis. It's time for Canada to reverse course on this failed
approach."
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?...
Liberals want laws and Taxes and they want to dive in head first, before
they test the water to see if it's boiling.
Liberals want endless virtual nullsets, since the only thing
more energy moronic than a liberal is a derivative liberal.
Since they're the cheerleaders for the liberal sycophant mimes.
Quote:
Multiple approaches to finding alternative fuels is a much better
approach.
I don't believe in Global warming, but I think multiple sources of
energy would help stomp out the terrorists. Stopping money from going to
the Middle east can't hurt us.
You don't believe in global warming?
Your wrong very wrong, and its people like you who are in denial. Its
amazing with all this information going on, but you know why you don't
believe because tv more or less ignores pollution and global warming. If
your paid tv star who hawks the news told you the pollution count how many
people needed meds in polluted areas compared to clean air places, the
places where their shores are declining and tides rising and if you were
told about the consequences of global warming on major news you would
believe. People here like in Nazi germany are pawns to the companies and
such who tout information to you. You believe what your told and don't
believe what your not told
Trust me when I compared tens of places I know that the air is getting
worse. I have my lungs constricting to show it and it only happens in areas
where the news pretty much ignores it and we got the most asthma. If all
that can happen you know darn well the hold oil and anti global warming has
on you. Ps one fifth of all people still smoke so obviously many of them are
not going to be too keen to care about global warming either. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Cthulhu |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hey, listen.
This is all very well, we know that Global Warming is happening, the seasons
are shot, mega-storms are on their way, and its all our fault!
That's what the scientists are saying, and they are giving all the facts and
figures and information about what is happening.
Hey, I am one of the converted!
SO PLEASE TELL US -
WHAT THE #$%^&* CAN WE DO ABOUT IT???
The scientists are sitting there in their labs and the politicians sitting
in their offices, and smugly telling us that the world is going to wrack and
ruin and its all our fault!
Great - so TELL US WHAT TO DO!!!!!!
Dammit, I am doing my best! I have cut down my car travelling by half! I
am using rainwater, not tap water. I have made my house ecologically safe!
I have even thrown away my motormower and am using a push mower!
It makes me weep! What more can I do??? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ScarletPimp |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Time To Admit Mistakes Were Made"
"Ethanol's Failed Promise"
Op-Ed
By Lester Brown and Jonathan Lewis
Tuesday, April 22, 2008; A19
The willingness to try, fail and try again is the essence of
scientific progress. The same sometimes holds true for public policy.
It is in this spirit that today, Earth Day, we call upon Congress to
revisit recently enacted federal mandates requiring the diversion of
foodstuffs for production of biofuels. These "food-to-fuel" mandates
were meant to move America toward energy independence and mitigate
global climate change. But the evidence irrefutably demonstrates that
this policy is not delivering on either goal. In fact, it is causing
environmental harm and contributing to a growing global food crisis.
Food-to-fuel mandates were created for the right reasons. The hope of
using American-grown crops to fuel our cars seemed like a win-win-win
scenario: Our farmers would enjoy the benefit of crop-price stability.
Our national security would be enhanced by having a new domestic
energy source. Our environment would be protected by a cleaner fuel.
But the likelihood of these outcomes was never seriously tested, and
new evidence has shown that the justifications for these mandates were
inaccurate.
It is now abundantly clear that food-to-fuel mandates are leading to
increased environmental damage. First, producing ethanol requires huge
amounts of energy -- most of which comes from coal. Second, the
production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some
production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water
sources.
Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of
agricultural staples, leading to significant changes in land use with
major environmental harm. Here in the United States, farmers are
pulling land out of the federal conservation program, threatening
fragile habitats. Increased agricultural production also means
increased fertilizer use. The National Academy of Sciences reported
last month that meeting the congressional food-to-fuel mandate by 2022
would lead to a 10 to 19 percent increase in the size of the Gulf of
Mexico's "dead zone" -- an area so polluted by fertilizer runoff that
no aquatic life can survive there.
Most troubling, though, is that the higher food prices caused in large
part by food-to-fuel mandates create incentives for global
deforestation, including in the Amazon basin. As Time magazine
reported this month, huge swaths of forest are being cleared for
agricultural development. The result is devastating: We lose an
ecological treasure and critical habitat for endangered species, as
well as the world's largest "carbon sink." And when the forests are
cleared and the land plowed for farming, the carbon that had been
sequestered in the plants and soil is released. Princeton scholar Tim
Searchinger has modeled this impact and reports in Science magazine
that the net impact of the food-to-fuel push will be an increase in
global carbon emissions -- and thus a catalyst for climate change.
Meanwhile, the mandates are not reducing our dependence on foreign
oil. Last year, the United States burned about a quarter of its
national corn supply as fuel -- and this led to only a 1 percent
reduction in the country's oil consumption.
Turning one-fourth of our corn into fuel is affecting global food
prices. U.S. food prices are rising at twice the rate of inflation,
hitting the pocketbooks of lower-income Americans and people living on
fixed incomes. Globally, the United Nations and other relief
organizations are facing gaping shortfalls as the cost of food
outpaces their ability to provide aid for the 800 million people who
lack food security. Deadly food riots have broken out in dozens of
nations in the past few months, most recently in Haiti and Egypt.
World Bank President Robert Zoellick warns of a global food emergency.
The immediate necessary step is a major increase in global food aid.
But beyond that, America must stop contributing to food price
inflation through mandates that force us to use food to feed our cars
instead of to feed people.
Taking these together -- the environmental damage, the human pain of
food price inflation, the failure to reduce our dependence on oil --
it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that food-to-fuel mandates
have failed. Congress took a big chance on biofuels that,
unfortunately, has not worked out. Now, in the spirit of progress, let
us learn the appropriate lessons from this setback, and let us act
quickly to mitigate the damage and set upon a new course that holds
greater promise for meeting the challenges ahead.
[Lester Brown is founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute.
Jonathan Lewis is a climate specialist and lawyer with the Clean Air
Task Force.] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ouroboros_Rex |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ScarletPimp wrote:
Quote: Time To Admit Mistakes Were Made"
"Ethanol's Failed Promise"
Op-Ed
By Lester Brown and Jonathan Lewis
Tuesday, April 22, 2008; A19
The willingness to try, fail and try again is the essence of
scientific progress. The same sometimes holds true for public policy.
It is in this spirit that today, Earth Day, we call upon Congress to
revisit recently enacted federal mandates requiring the diversion of
foodstuffs for production of biofuels. These "food-to-fuel" mandates
were meant to move America toward energy independence and mitigate
global climate change.
No, actually they were meant to buy votes from farmers while
simultaneously letting right wingers achieve their age old dream of reducing
farm subsidies.
Easy answer - don't use corn. Of course, that does not help the
republican party in 2008. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rob Dekker |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Cthulhu" <chipper@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:fujlph$etu$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Quote: Hey, listen.
This is all very well, we know that Global Warming is happening, the seasons are shot, mega-storms are on their way, and its all
our fault!
That's what the scientists are saying, and they are giving all the facts and figures and information about what is happening.
Hey, I am one of the converted!
SO PLEASE TELL US -
WHAT THE #$%^&* CAN WE DO ABOUT IT???
The scientists are sitting there in their labs and the politicians sitting in their offices, and smugly telling us that the world
is going to wrack and ruin and its all our fault!
Great - so TELL US WHAT TO DO!!!!!!
Dammit, I am doing my best! I have cut down my car travelling by half! I am using rainwater, not tap water. I have made my
house ecologically safe! I have even thrown away my motormower and am using a push mower!
It makes me weep! What more can I do???
What to do ?
Force everyone to do the same thing you did and more...
How to 'force' a world to kick the fossil fuel addiction ?
Raise the price !
Mmm. It's starting to happen. Crude oil crossed $115 / barrel and rising. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:04 am
|
|