environmental

Two GOP Senators Say Get Rid of Ethanol Subsidies; Gore Says His Support for Ethanol Subsidies a Mistake

by Fran Smith on November 23, 2010

in Agriculture, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Global Warming

In the Washington Post’s “Plum Line” column today Greg Sargent focuses on two GOP senators’ campaign to get rid of the ethanol subsidies that are due to expire at the end of the year. It’s likely that the issue will be a divisive one on the Republican side, because some strong supporters of ethanol subsidies want to extend the 45-cent-a-gallon tax credit for blenders of ethanol and the tariff on ethanol imports.

Influential Republican Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn are arguing that a clear message in the recent elections was that Americans want to reduce government spending, and the ethanol programs should be on the cutting block.

A surprise new opponent of ethanol subsidies from the other Party is former Vice President Al Gore, who was quoted as saying: “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol.” Gore noted that ethanol as a fuel has a small energy conversion ratio. He also explained his earlier support for ethanol subsidies as a product of his political ambition to become president:

“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”

Many environmental and food aid groups – some of which had originally supported corn-based ethanol production - turned against this technology because of the diversion of corn crops from food to fuel production as well as the environmental damage of its production. CEI early on – in 2006 — called attention to the land and environmental costs of expanded ethanol production because of the subsidies and other incentives, especially the renewable fuels mandate. In 2007, CEI pointed to the unintended consequences of the ethanol program. Check out CEI’s global warming website for news about CEI’s continued efforts to get rid of the ethanol mandate, subsidies, and tariffs.

Human Achievement of the Day: Human Nature

by Michelle Minton on March 17, 2010 · 1 comment

in Odds & Ends

Leave it to man to improve upon mother nature. Sure, she’s got trees of every shape color and size, they rustle in the breeze, and produce life-giving oxygen, but can her trees produce jet fuel? Now, ours can:synthetictree

Over at Columbia University, professor Klaus S. Lackner has one-upped the natural world by coming up with a synthetic tree that can absorb carbon dioxide 1000 times faster than “old-style” trees and hundreds of times faster than windmill generators.

The “tree” uses plastic leaves that capture the carbon dioxide in a chamber. The carbon dioxide is then compressed into liquid form. The tree captures the carbon without the need for direct sunlight, which means that, unlike traditional trees, the synthetic trees can be stored in enclosed places such as barns, used anywhere, and transported from one site to another regardless of conditions.

Lackner says the captured CO2 could be used to create fuel for jet engines and cars, the two most common carbon emitters. In other cases, the CO2 could be used to enhance current production of vegetable produce.

klaus-lackner-of-columbia-uni1

The “trees” are similar to devices used to capture carbon from the flue stacks of carbon power plants, but the major difference is that these new trees capture ambient carbon from the environment at all times.

One thing this achievement highlights is how environmental problems can be solved by the free market. Rather than passing laws that simply mandate industry use less energy or emit less carbon dioxide, creating an effective way to reuse energy and create cheaper fuels is likely to result in systemic changes in the way energy and pollution are dealt with. With these “trees” the perception of emissions from naughty pollution to the wastefulness. Why freely emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when we can re-purpose it for cost-effective fuels?

Enviros trying to wipe out soft toilet paper!

by Michael Fumento on September 27, 2009

in Environment, Global Warming

Okay, this time they’ve gone too far!

Now, says the Washington Post, environmentalists are trying to wipe out plush toilet paper!

They say that’s because plush U.S. toilet paper is usually made from older trees – though not what’s defined as “old growth” by any means. And older trees, they say, are better for absorbing carbon dioxide and thereby slowing global warming.

(Have you noticed that there’s nothing that can’t be tied into global warming?)

They want us Americans to wipe with the same stuff Europeans use, made from recycled paper goods.

Well, I’ve been to Europe a lot and while I’m no xenophobe I must say their toilet paper is just one grade above sandpaper. No, ifs, ands, or butts about it.

They’ll get my soft toilet paper when they pry it from my cold dead hands!

(Though I really don’t want to be found dead sitting on “the throne” . . . )

“No Way” to San Jose

by Angela Logomasini on September 23, 2009 · 3 comments

in Environment

In recent years, the San Jose City Hall has led the way in stupid environmental policies.  Several years ago, they were among one of the first cities  (along with San Francisco and Salt Lake City) to ban bottled water in government agencies based on questionable environmental claims.  Now they are banning stores from giving away shopping bags of any kind.  Plastic bags will be banned altogether and stores providing paper bags must charge a fee only provide bags made with 40 percent recycled material.

As detailed before, banning plastic bags won’t help the environment because they are more energy efficient than paper and do not pose any significant problems when properly disposed.  However, this law also targets paper bags based on the assumption that people either don’t need bags or can bring canvas or other reusable bags.  But there are problems with that approach as well: reusable bags can become riddled with dangerous bacteria.

Surely, every choice in life carries risks and benefits.  The idea that government regulators–starting in crazy places like San Jose–should be granted the right to trump our freedoms and decide what risks are worth taking is frightening, particularly since they so often mess up.  Unfortunately, lawmakers love copying bad ideas.  After San Jose and San Francisco banned plastic bottles, many other places followed suit.  This time, consumers in other cities would be wise to say “no way” to this silly San Jose nanny-state regulation.

Image attribution:  San Jose City Hall taken from ktadeo’s photostream on Flickr.