12 Comments so far

1. youbetterwork January 25th, 2007 1:59 pm

   Biofuels are just a scam.
   They use GM plants and only profit big corporations like Monsanto and Cargil.
   They use excessive fertilizer and more fuel than they are supposed to be saving…

   http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/07/fuel_to_the_fir.html

2. rtdrury January 25th, 2007 2:25 pm

   The growth of ethanol as an alternative fuel leaves the domination of our society by capital secure, with only a modest increment away from the destructive inefficiencies that serve capital so well. First, capital should not call the shots, rather the people should call the shots. Second, the current ethanol production paradigm has severe inefficiencies making our increased dependence on it completely unacceptable. We see in this energy crisis an underlying crisis of capitalism itself. Capital can’t direct industry for the people’s benefit. The people have to direct industry for their own benefit. Capital has to be put in its place as society’s beast of burden and nothing more. The people have to take control of resource allocation away from capital. We can do this by protest, boycott, and by seizing production itself. Moving production to the local level holds the greatest promise as a component of an overall ideal of greater self determination for all people.

3. Vince Lawrence January 25th, 2007 2:26 pm

   youbetterwork is correct about corn. Corn is one of the most energy intensive crops grown commercially. Biofuels are not a scam however. If we had seriously started down the road to addressing these problems when Carter said that the energy crisis is the moral equivalent of war then we would already have a body of knowledge that would have sorted many of the bad proposals and technologies from the good.

   The truth is, as pointed out by many serious analysts, that there is no single silver bullet that will solve our energy problems, but many diverse “technologies” that can be applied on a small scale. The most important of these by far is conservation. All of our housing, transportation, and much of our manufacturing could benefit enormously by using less. Of course this requires a complete mental adjustment as our conspicuous consumption is a badge of honor to our “obvious” superiority.

4. oldtimer January 25th, 2007 8:22 pm

   If ethanol is so good why don’t they use it to make their own product?
   Because it takes 131000 BTUs of energy to make one gallon of ethanol. A gallon of ethanol only has 77000 BTUs of energy in it. A net LOSS of 54000 BTUs.
   There is NO SUCH thing as PERPETUAL MOTION!!!
   See for yourself with link below…..

   http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

5. Robert Ingersoll January 25th, 2007 10:05 pm

   The primary problems are the sheer numbers of automobiles and our addiction to non-essential driving. The secondary issue is the type of fuel we use.

   “Our national flower is the concrete cloverleaf.”
   Lewis Mumford

   “The current American way of life is founded not just on motor transportation, but on the religion of the motorcar, and the sacrifices that people are prepared to make for this religion stand outside the realm of rational criticism. … The fatal mistake we have been making is to sacrifice every other form of transportation to the private motorcar — and to offer, as the only long-distance alternative, the airplane.”
   Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963.

   “All cars — hybrid, electric, biodiesel or gas-guzzling — contribute to urban sprawl; all cars demand asphalt-paved roads and parking lots; and all cars require polluting and resource-depleting industries for their production and upkeep.”
   Robert, 2004.

   For a dozen articles analyzing the secondary issue of fuels – biofuels and ethanol – please see http://www.freewebs.com/corvallis/FuelProblems.htm

6. bill January 26th, 2007 5:57 am

   Free Public Transportation. Biggest bang for the buck. Low tech. Immediately addresses hundreds of problems. Think about it. No. Really think about it. Take a few minutes.

7. mtneuman January 26th, 2007 12:13 pm

   Philip Clapp is correct in saying there is no revolution in global warming policy in anything the President proposed in his State of the Union address. Burning ethanol and other biofuels will still add to growing stockpile of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and global warming will continue to progress. In fact more burning will be done than ever by increased ethanol use since fuel burning is a big part of the production more of the final product has to be burned to go the same distance than if straight gasoline or diesel fuel were burned instead.

   Moreover, since there is already an overabundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the gases from burning biofuels will build up in the atmosphere just as fast and therefore these fuels are not “CO2 neutral”.

   To reduce our contributions to global warming, we need to reduce all fuel burning, including biofuels. As Mr. Clapp suggests, that calls for real revolution in current global warming policy, much above and beyond what the President is proposing.

   To be a true “revolution”, whatever global warming policy our governmental leaders come up has to involve almost a complete “turning of the apple cart”. The policy has to be able to bring about major changes in the way businesses and institutions operate in the country, and the way Americans carry out their daily business. And the policy must be able to be implemented quickly since greenhouse gases have compounding effects in the atmosphere (positive feedbacks) and the warming is, for all intents and purposes, irreversible.

8. DeborahMarchant January 26th, 2007 6:19 pm

   The Bush Administration’s policy is “We only want to know enough to destroy and we’ll make an effect even if we have to destroy everything.” What we can do to counterbalance this is to know what works and use what we know works to create the wonderful effect of clean air, and an endlessly beautiful future for us all.
   Love, Air and Water, Deborah Marchant

9. Shannyn January 27th, 2007 11:56 am

   As the first person in Santa Fe to drive a car on RECYCLED vegetable oil, I do believe that it could solve a sizeable portion of the greenhouse factor, regenerate our farm lands, and provide a good livelihood to farmers – just as Rudolph Diesel imagined. One must have a diesel engine to run on vegetable oil. The most regenerative crops are legumes like soy and of course hemp which creates a vegetable oil that can be (and are being) farmed by diesel engines using vegetable oil. The Department of Energy, in fact, discovered that the highest producing vegetable oil product is algae grown on brackish water which would open a new level of agriculture, especially here in New Mexico.

   As the fast food restaurants are coming to understand that it is actually healthier to use vegetable oil and animal derived oils, this also could provide a sustainable source for fuel that is recycled. The diesel engine is also a much more sustainable engine, higher mileage, and longer lasting. My car has 350,000 miles on the engine and it still has much more life in it. The solutions are readily available if we open our eyes.

   Shannyn Sollitt – NetWorks Productions

10. mountainqueen January 28th, 2007 4:41 pm

    The leader of the “free” world should set an example for the world by curtailing all his unnecessary flights to and fro trying to sell his “new” plan for Iraq, and by formulating a clear policy of change required to halt the progress of global warming.

11. bnsyrekyhasy December 10th, 2007 2:43 am

    titwucosexahi…

    extaxerewywu…

12. bnvanuhuzuza December 10th, 2007 4:52 am

    titzizyxyhexi…

    excecivyrera…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)