posted 11-23-2010 08:28 AM ET (US)        

REUTERS AFRICA--not exactly a widely read news service here in America--quotes Gore as follows:

"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol."

"First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.

"It's hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going."

"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."

"The size, the percentage of corn particularly, which is now being (used for) first generation ethanol definitely has an impact on food prices.

"The competition with food prices is real."

Gore was speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank.

posted 11-23-2010 10:41 AM ET (US)            

I'd think that any thinking person could recognize that minimizing our dependence on foreign oil is beneficial. Therefore, they to might consider ethanol a good thing.

posted 11-23-2010 11:02 AM ET (US)            

It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol than it produces. That does not even begin address all the damage done,
and the cost of food.

posted 11-23-2010 11:18 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

I'd think that any thinking person could recognize that minimizing our dependence on foreign oil is beneficial. Therefore, they to might consider ethanol a good thing.

---

Of course any thinking person would agree that minimizing our dependency on foreign oil is a good thing. You are completely missing the point though. Gore admits here that his agenda had more to do with winning an election and that the results of his efforts have not only NOT lessened our dependency but have created powerful lobbys that are less interested in our energy problems and more interested in bringing the bacon home to the folks paying them to do so. How does any of this help lessen our dependency on foreign oil? If anything it has hurt that agenda as resources that should be used to come up with an effective method of ethanol production have been used or hobbled by the lobbiests fighting for "thier" share of the pig.

Even our resident liberal activist has been silenced by this. At least relative to his normally outspoken nature.

posted 11-23-2010 11:33 AM ET (US)            

I am not anti ethanol, I am anti taxpayers paying for it. When we are sitting on enough offshore oil, the ANWR oil and the Bakken shale field oil to take us to oil independence, I have a problem paying for a solution of a problem that doesn't have to exist.

Natural gas and new solutions like switch grass offer additional solutions. If it makes economic sense, terrific.

posted 11-23-2010 11:42 AM ET (US)         

... get a grip. Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory, but the ethanol lobby goes back decades (even before Gore was working on inventing the internet :D ).

posted 11-23-2010 11:55 AM ET (US)            

I have to pay extra because of the ethanol and not only do I not get any mileage out of it, it also kills the mileage I would have gotten from 10% of the gasoline I bought.

Ugggghhhhh!

posted 11-23-2010 12:01 PM ET (US)            

Epur si muove.

posted 11-23-2010 12:46 PM ET (US)         

You are saying that Gore has had no influence on the ethanol craze? Where did I place the total blame for the misplaced trust of the less cynical among us at Gore's feet?

You too are missing the point completely.

You are being sold a bill of goods for no other reason then political and financial gain and you want to quibble about unimportant details.

posted 11-23-2010 12:51 PM ET (US)            

-dictators who rely on expensive energy to help keep their subjects from from gaining too much education, sanitation, clean water, information, power, what-have-you: things that make life difficult for totalitarians

-the health care industry, particularly the cancer industry, will benefit because one of the combustion by-products of alcohol fuels is aldehydes. formaldehyde, in case of methanol, and acetylaldehyde, in the case of ethanol

posted 11-23-2010 01:01 PM ET (US)         

GNR- I'm saying is that the powerful lobbies are not the result of his efforts as you declare (without attribution). They were there decades earlier. As a side note, the majority of the ethanol lobby is received by republicans ... but I won't blame them entirely (see my links above, and Tony's from previous E15 discussion).

If its an unimportant detail, then don't post it.

I'm not being sold anything, I get my information from a variety of sources, including primary literature... and then make my own decision.

What point am I missing?

posted 11-23-2010 01:51 PM ET (US)            

The experts and scientific facts you espouse have been proven wrong by their own sources. I have read the released emails out of East Anglia where internally they admit they can't make their data fit their claims. They also admit stifling opposing scientists and their supporting data. I have read the interviews with Phil Jones and one where he admits that there was global warming in MWP. I have read that East Anglia has admitted they have lost their data to support their theory. I even remember back to the '70s "accepted science" when scientists warned there was an imminent mini ice age. I am making my decision on the global activist own words and deeds. I could go on and on but this is off topic.

Since technically my body heat contributes to man made warming, I should amend my statement that there is no significant global man made warming.

There is proof that the Earth is round and to your clever "Epur si muove" revolves around the sun. As of yet there is no proof of significant man made warming.

I have plenty of information to assist you in your edification and I would be happy to email it to you if you wish.

For this discussion I will now return to topic.

posted 11-23-2010 02:04 PM ET (US)            

We'll see what happens, eh? One thing I do know for sure: My old dad was right when he taught me not to shit where I eat.

posted 11-23-2010 02:05 PM ET (US)         

The rest of your screen name is appropriate for sure.

If you apply some context to my posts you should understand that while I did choose a poor word (created) to make my point the point is stil valid.

You failed to answer my question.

Are you saying that Gore's influence did not feed the ethanol fire to a great degree? Are you saying that his influence did not take the existing lobbys and supercharge them?

Is that what you are saying?

This is less about ethanol and more about the politics involved.

posted 11-23-2010 02:45 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

millions of tons of human-caused pollution dumped into the Earth's atmosphere. If you don't think that this contributes to global climate change, there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. I'm not a scientist, but...

---

Tony! Lest we play "fast and loose" with our terminology here, allow me to aid you in your focus: Global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect. While there is little doubt that millions of tons of pollutants are being dumped into the atmosphere, only things that are greenhouse gases have the physical properties that render them capable of contributing to global warming. The most plentiful greenhouse gas, by order of hundreds of thousands, is water vapor. The one that is being focused on by the political classes is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide of course, is not REALLY a pollutant. It is a suffocant, because it can displace oxygen, and cause you to suffocate, but it is not a toxin. If you breathe it, you will not have to contact a poison control center. The EPA, under political pressure during the Bush administration did reclassify it as some kind of pollutant, clearly a political move, as it is the only pollutant that has no known toxic effects.

Anyway, just thought I'd drop you a lifeline to help you discriminate your terminology in this matter. In your line of work, I'm sure you can appreciate the value of wordsmithing and correct terminology. Have a good one. :)

posted 11-23-2010 04:53 PM ET (US)            

Don't worry about Mother Nature, she will take care of herself.

posted 11-23-2010 05:01 PM ET (US)         

Water vapor, CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been in a natural balance for a very long time before man started burning fossil fuels, in fact without the greenhouse effect Earth would be too cold for life. All of the green house gases have natural negative sinks that prevent them from going into a positive feedback loop out of control like what has occurred on Venus.

The concern by scientist on CO2 is if man made production exceeds the natural CO2 sinks ability to re-absorb we could hit a tipping point that ends up in an out of control warming cycle. We are compounding the problem by cutting down forest and other vegetation as photosynthesis is a large CO2 sink.

Many of the sinks have negative feedbacks that help counter increases, such as warmer temperatures promoting plant/algae growth that helps increase CO2 re-absorption. The problem is we don't know how much capacity or how quickly the sinks can adjust, if they react too slowly then maybe earth will recover, but it will be long after we go instinct from the result.

So just just because man made CO2 by volume is small compared to say water vapor does not mean it is not a threat to throwing off the delicate balance the we currently enjoy.

What is the down side, even if climate scientist are wrong, does that mean we made cleaner motors and a better world for nothing?

posted 11-23-2010 05:02 PM ET (US)            

A pollutant to whom? You ask. Fair question. Without heading down the rathole of relativism that you are luring me down into, I'm happy to stick with the public health and first responders' classification of the "pollutancy" (made up term), of carbon dioxide. When I see doctors wearing hazmat suits when treating patients to prtect themselves from the co2 in their exhalations, or first responders wearing hazmat suits to clean up carbon dioxide spills, I'll consider carbon dioxide a pollutant myself... or at least I'll consider it as long as it doesn't reek of political puffery.

Say, your profile does not reveal your name... or is it TJ?

posted 11-23-2010 05:17 PM ET (US)         

"something that pollutes"

Ok what does pollute mean, ignoring the definitions that deal with ceremonial desecration we get:

"to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste"

or from another dictionary:

"To make something or somewhere less suitable for some activity, especially by the introduction of some unnatural factor."

posted 11-23-2010 05:57 PM ET (US)            

"It's actually very simple. There are probably too many people on this Earth and there probably needs to be a thinning of the herd.
Don't worry about Mother Nature, she will take care of herself."

He ain't talking about "body heat" here, guys and gals. He's talking about the 9 [billion] human beings who will be crowded together on our beautiful blue marble within the lifetime of our children; each one of whom will be spewing out--or causing to be spewed out--more and more industrial and agricultural pollution.

When I was my son Nicko's age, 24, the Earth provided life to about 3 [billion] homo sapiens, give or take a few.
Now, in a little more than one generation, we're looking at a tripling of that number, with their concomitant use of our globe's limited resources. Along with such use comes vastly increased industrial and agricultural pollution if we don't get our global heads together and work toward a cleaner, more rational way of existence.

It's very hard for me to understand how many members of this boating forum--who for the most part are those most immediately involved with the environment on a basis not really known to or understood by landlocked city dwellers--can buy into the corporate B.S. regarding the danger, or lack thereof, of industrial and agricultural pollution. Let's say there IS no human-caused global climate change. So what? Are you Boston Whaler boat enthusiasts still going to deny that our poor, overburdened world should at least slow down fouling its own limited environment?

This isn't--or shouldn't be--a right/left, liberal/conservative debate. The Earth is our home, right, left & center, and if we have any pretensions whatsoever about being its steward, we've gotta wake up right now, or, as Warren predicts, Mother Nature will do it for us.

Tony

posted 11-23-2010 06:12 PM ET (US)            

Supply and demand would dictate what fuel was being sold and purchased if not for the Federal mandate on how many gallons of ethanol have to be used in our gasoline. I have read that the mandate for next year on gallons of ethanol to be used will not be reached even if every gallon sold in the US is 10%. Demand is down.

What is the solution to this problem? Should we change the mandate and make it a percentage of the total gasoline used in the US? That would be too easy. The answer is E15. The problem is, not all cars can use E15. The solution is put in more tanks at every gas station and offer both products. The problem is with more tanks in the ground you will have more pollution and higher costs.

You get tax credits for electric cars, tax credits for ethanol. It just gets so confusing.

I am going to check to see if I can resell electricity in my own electric car recharging station. Any bets that I have to become a public utility in order to resell electricity?

John

posted 11-23-2010 06:19 PM ET (US)            

How do you tell man made co2 from natural.

I wonder, when one goes through rigorous laboratory analysis to detect the presence of carbon dioxide, if it's origin, (man made, or natural), can be ascertained? Perhaps a lab technician with particularly acute "karmic" skills can pick up a negative "vibe" from the carbon dioxide that was man made, even if its chemical composition, one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms is identical to the natural one?

posted 11-23-2010 06:45 PM ET (US)            

Still hard for me to grasp, I guess--one thousand times nine million human beings crowded onto, and polluting with the encouragement of the multi-nationals, this beautiful world of ours. As Warren states, watch out for Mother Nature.

posted 11-23-2010 07:53 PM ET (US)            

--ethanol derived from corn is poor science in terms of the energy produced compared to the energy used in production;

--ethanol derived from corn is too expensive to be practical; it is only an attractive alternative fuel if heavily subsidized by taxpayers; it makes poor economic sense;

posted 11-23-2010 09:16 PM ET (US)            

As for the "smoking gun" of East Anglia, a nice whipping boy a la Acorn (also shown to be trumped up), but independent investigations have shown no systematic efforts to defraud, and in any case just about every other serious climate scientist in the world agrees that man's activities contribute to global warming. Is it the only cause? No. But to completely deny man's effects shows a willingness to embrace baseless political viewpoints over scientific evidence.

posted 11-23-2010 09:19 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

My objection to ethanol produced from corn has always been on three bases, none particularly political:
--ethanol derived from corn is poor science in terms of the energy produced compared to the energy used in production;

--ethanol derived from corn is too expensive to be practical; it is only an attractive alternative fuel if heavily subsidized by taxpayers; it makes poor economic sense;

--ethanol derived from corn which could otherwise be grown for food consumption is an ethical nightmare. To divert a good crop like corn to use as a inefficient and subsidized alternative fuel is an ethical violation.

---

Top of my list, too. I would add it enables yet another avenue for special interests with lots of $$ behind them to influence policy that benefits them over the average person/taxpayer.

posted 11-23-2010 09:46 PM ET (US)         

It's not composition but quantity. Man made CO2 has the same composition as natural, there is just more of it in the air now than before the industrial revolution.

Tap water has a certain amount of arsenic in it, and is safe (There is actually a regulated safe amount). If I add arsenic to your tap water, I am by definition polluting it with an unnatural and perhaps harmful amount. Everything is both safe and harmful it all depends on the quantity.

The natural balance is based on the quantity of natural CO2 sources with enough natural sinks, this is the carbon cycle.

Humans burning hydrocarbons are adding more CO2 into the cycle while also destroying the sinks through deforestation and urbanization, this leaves more CO2 in the atmosphere for longer.

If there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere either by our doing or naturally temperatures will raise enough to cause excess water vapor from the oceans which will feed back into the greenhouse effect, this is known as a runaway greenhouse effect. The prime example of how far it can go is our sister planet Venus which probably had water oceans that have long since boiled leaving a mostly CO2 atmosphere and 800 degree F surface temperatures with sulfuric acid rain, literally hell.

posted 11-23-2010 10:04 PM ET (US)         

Now, if someone would just invent/develop/discover a truly non-carbon based alternative fuel that would eliminate, for an eternity, the use of fossel fuels, we could accomplish several wonderful things: one of which is to stop the wasted bandwidth on these wonderful threads.

posted 11-23-2010 10:44 PM ET (US)         

Hydrocarbons are just stored solar energy from ancient plants photosynthesis.

Lets cut out the middle man, better batteries and better solar panels and its a done deal. Current panels are only around %20 efficient, lithium batteries are 100 times lower energy density than gasoline. Current PMSM electric motor used in hybrids have better power to weight than most gasoline engines with flat torque curves to boot.

posted 11-24-2010 11:23 AM ET (US)         

No the difference is plant rotting is a less effective producer of CO2 and typically doesn't produce methane, and a lot of plant carbohydrates are not broken down in the rotting process allowing for carbon sequestration.

This is after all where our hydrocarbons come from ancient rotted plants carbon stores that didn't turn into greenhouse gas back then.

Livestock on the other hand are through respiration much more effective at turning plant carbs into CO2, on top of that through enteric fermentation they turns some of those carbs into methane, which is 8 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Again the issue is how much carbon is in the atmosphere vs in the ground/water at any one time that can tip the scales. If all the carbon stores on earth where converted to CO2 right now, Earth would be like Venus, luckily it is sequestered instead.

But burning fossil fuels, large scale livestock production and clear cutting for the livestock is all changing the carbon budget, putting more up in the air at one time than would be there naturally.

posted 11-24-2010 01:46 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

That is not true, the CO2 is coming out one way or another.

---

posted 11-24-2010 03:52 PM ET (US)         

No with livestock CO2 is produced more quickly and more throughly through respiration than through plant decomposition. Livestock can turn an equal amount of plant matter into CO2 in hours that would take months of decomposition on the open ground.

Plants also do not create methane (CH4) in normal decomposition, unless in a low oxygen environment like a swamp bottom, livestock does.

Methane is 8 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, if your going to make one, make CO2.

posted 11-24-2010 10:30 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Then the plants take C02 back out of the ground.

---

posted 11-24-2010 11:03 PM ET (US)            

But - aside from that, Warren - your are right on with

"It's actually very simple. There are probably too many people on this Earth and there probably needs to be a thinning of the herd.
Don't worry about Mother Nature, she will take care of herself."

I might only add - eventually, there will be a "thinning of the herd". ---- Jerry/Idaho

posted 11-25-2010 08:41 AM ET (US)            

Cows produce the C02 faster, but more feed is grown for the cows, which take the C02 back out of the air. The methane is a problem.

Carbon neutral deals with the release of C02.