Uncategorized

Popping corn

Every time I post something about biofuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel), it gets, shall we say, spirited comments. Passions run hot on both sides, with opinions split between those who think that biofuels are one of the most promising solutions to America's petroleum dependence and a great way of reducing climate-warming emissions, and those who think that that biofuels are mostly a costly and wasteful distraction.

What do I think? I posted a longer post on that subject on the Cascadia Scorecard Weblog. Here's a Cliff Notes version.

• Corn ethanol's chief critic says that it's a waste of energy -- ie., that it takes more fossil fuel energy to grow corn and distill it into ethanol than the ethanol itself contains. But he uses outdated data.
• A widely cited USDA researcher says that corn ethanol can reduce fossil fuel use -- ie., that corn ethanol contains considerably more energy than is contained in the fossil fuels used to farm corn and distill ethanol. But he relies on some generous assumptions, and ignores some significant energy costs.
• Averaging the two views, it seems that corn ethanol probably uses about as much fossil fuel energy to produce as is contained in the gasoline it displaces -- maybe a little more, maybe a little less, but not a lot either way.
• Which means, as things currently stand, that I'm much more interested in promoting fuel efficient vehicles and compact urban design than I am in even discussing corn ethanol. Those steps can have a big impact on fossil fuel consumption. Ramping up corn ethanol production--unless I'm badly mistaken--won't.

Now, obviously, there are lots of other points to be made both for and against corn ethanol; and these arguments don't carry over into biodiesel or cellulose ethanol. But they do make me feel like shrugging and changing the subject whenever someone gets all excited about corn ethanol, either pro or con.

Sometimes political showmanship is just what the Dr. ordered

This comment from reader mmuller23 on the by-now-notorious CHEERS study raises an important point that is worth elevating here. On the Senate Dems' efforts to stall Johnson's nomination, he/she says:

Somehow it has more the feel of an easy media stunt than the rational approach to policy making we (liberals) like to take pride in.

My initial reaction to this is: Argh.

To flesh that out a bit:

Arctic Refuge drilling debate misses the big picture

Sun-drenched Pelican Island in Florida is about as far from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as you can get in the United States. At first blush, the 5,000-acre warm marsh would seem to have little connection to the 19 million-acre stretch of mountains and tundra. But they are inextricably linked. A buff-breasted sandpiper. © Subhankar […]

The Ventilator

Washington state law calls for new public buildings to be green Washington state will be the first in the nation to require new public buildings to meet green building standards, thanks to a bill signed last week by Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) at Washington Middle School in Olympia. Said school is due for a remodel […]

Do the Riot Thing

Chemical factory pollution sparks riot in eastern China Thousands of farmers rioted in a village in eastern China over the weekend, taking a stand against encroachment of the country’s fast-growing industries onto their land, and the pollution and health problems that result. Villagers had set up roadblocks to interfere with deliveries to and from the […]

Encyclopedia Brown and the Case of the Missing Waste

Like absentminded professors, nuclear plants misplace their waste A comprehensive new report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reveals pervasive problems in the nuclear industry, abetted by lax federal regulation. You know all that waste nuclear plants produce, the stuff that stays radioactive for a kajillion years? Yeah, well, seems they keep losing track of […]

Check out Business Ethics’ list

Via TriplePundit, check out Business Ethics Magazine's new list of the "100 Best Corporate Citizens for 2005."

Buzz Kill

The Soviet Union’s collapse led to a revolution in Cuba’s farming system

Speaking of the latest issue of Harper's, it also contains a great piece by frequent Grist contributor Bill McKibben called "The Cuba Diet." (It's reprinted in full on this blog.) Dang, the dude can write.

The piece begins as a sort of anthropological meander through Cuba's agricultural system. Turns out, when the Soviet Union fell, Cuba's heavily-subsidized, mechanized, chemical-soaked farm system collapsed. It was a huge and sudden economic change probably without precedent in the modern world. Since Castro wouldn't/couldn't open up trade, the whole country basically had to shift to a small-scale, localized, de facto organic farming system, almost overnight. Now they've got their crop load more or less where it was, with almost no use of petroleum-heavy pesticides or huge farm machinery. Pretty interesting.

McKibben pivots very subtly from this story to a meditation on our current agricultural system. It's worth reading the whole thing. Here's a tasty bit:

Johnson Pulls Out

EPA scraps controversial pesticide study Just two days after Senate Democrats announced they would block Stephen Johnson’s confirmation as U.S. EPA administrator until the contentious Children’s Health Environmental Exposure Research Study was cancelled, Johnson bowed to pressure, reversed the agency’s previous wait-and-see position, and pulled the plug. The creepily acronymed CHEERS would have given a […]