Today is Earth Day, but I'm not in a celebratory mood in the least bit when it comes to the environment. To the contrary, I'm much closer to despair. And it's things like this that push me in that direction.
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...
What frustrates me so greatly about all this is that WE HAVE KNOWN THESE FACTS FOR YEARS. I personally have been warning about all of this -- plus the immorality and idiocy of burning food for fuel in a hungry world (we now see food riots and political instability growing across the world) -- for a long time. Yet nobody seems to listen (if anything, I've been criticized -- by people who, frankly, don't know what the heck they're talking about, certainly didn't work for 17 years at the Energy Information Administration -- for "dissing" those wonderful biofuels).
Meanwhile, in Washington DC, lobbyists from Big Agriculture -- e.g., ADM, "supermarket to the world" (what a joke) -- is busy telling clueless politicians what they want to hear, that subsidies for corn-based ethanol will give the United States "energy security" (whatever THAT is) and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Neither is, in the least bit, true. What IS true is that ethanol subsidies are a complete debacle, a huge corporate welfare program for ADM and other Big Ag companies, an environmental disaster, a national security threat, and pretty much everything that's wrong with Washington, DC in a nutshell.
So, on Earth Day, my feeling is this: we are not serious, but instead are flailing around looking for easy, technological fixes for all our problems (so quintessentially American). But as far as corn-based ethanol is concerned, I agree 100% with Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute when he writes, "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."
What are the chances of that happening? Given the power of the Big Ag lobby in Washington, DC, plus absolutely horrendous leadership from both parties on this subject, I'd say "probably not high." Meanwhile, food riot and political instability continue to grow around the world, we damage the environment, and the price of food skyrockets. Heckuva job, huh? Happy Earth Day! (snark)
Wind, Solar, Hydrothermal should also be pursued along with conservation but the reality is there is an enormous demand for energy in this country and that is not going to change anytime soon and the three pervious energy sources are at best a drop in the bucket for the total energy needed.
But, as I'm sure you're well aware, for all the problems Nuclear solves it introduces other very serious environmental problems in the form of waste and potential accidents. A slight nod toward Nuclear to fill some immediate gaps might work, but a long term substitute nuclear for coal solution doesn't look good at all.
For baseload, you need to either capture carbon on coal-fired generation or replace it with Natural Gas or Nuclear. Natural Gas produces less carbon dioxide in combustion than coal, but it still produces it. And there is the issue as to whether Natural Gas could really replace all of coal-fired generation given current production and the fact that we are being out-bid on LNG. And given current Natural Gas prices, it would be more expensive for VA consumers. For reference, if you have a relative in Texas, their competitive market prices basically track natural gas.
On Nuclear, my solution to the waste issue is one word: Nevada. =)
You don't want to go putting nuclear waste into outer space using rockets, because the danger of an exploding rocket would then become cataclysmic. But getting it up there on the space elevator is a whole other story.
We would still need to do something about replacing baseload capacity. But Demand Management would help us reduce the scope of that change over. Demand Management has a positive rate of return for consumers and it is less costly than building new power plants. It's a win-win. Going all nuclear for baseload will require vasts sums of financing. To the extent we can reduce that need, that will save (ultimately) consumers a lot of money.
The Democrats have gone along with all of this. There has been no "voice in the wilderness", no Burke crying out for some rationality in public affairs. Even at this late date we are not hearing the hard facts that the issues at hand won't be solved without a lot of pain and a big price tag. I don't think a Democrat could be elected if they were telling the truth. The Republicans are still singing the same song and people are still listening to it. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" [2 Tim 4:3]
I realized why George Soros is a supporter of left wing causes when I read that he never believed in a free market that tended to stability. He understood that an unregulated market is an engine without a governor, that it tends to oscillate in a feedback loop. He got rich in currency speculation using this principle.
We need leadership that tells us what Churchill told his people when he came to office, expect blood, sweat, and tears. There is going to be pain. There is no free lunch. The government is going to have to provide some level of regulation to dampen market oscillations. Government is instituted to be a restrainer of evil. [see Romans 13:1-6]
DR=David Roberts of Gristmill
DHE= McCain advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin
DHE: The stated use of cap-and-trade is to harness market forces to the greatest extent possible; that's the basic philosophy. Obviously there are differences of opinion on the starting point, but I don't think his intention is to disfavor biofuels in any way.
DR: Is he opposed to ethanol subsidies?
DHE: Yes.
DR: Will he work to eliminate existing ethanol subsidies?
DHE: Yes. The exclusive reliance on corn-based ethanol is, in his view, inappropriate, relative to other potential sources for ethanol. And the combination of the subsidy and the tariff barrier against the sugar-based ethanol from abroad strikes him as inappropriate.
DR: Is he willing to go the mat to battle Big Ag?
DHE: He was certainly willing to stand up in Iowa, with his political future on the line, and tell people the truth. There was a speech at the BioEconomy Conference during the Iowa primary -- he said, I'm a good Republican, and I like Iowa, but I'm opposed to these subsidies.
This is one of the big moral issues of our time. Will we be willing to use more efficient vehicles, conserve and drive less or decrease the extent to which we are corn-guzzling hogs of the world? We have to persuade Obama and Clinton that increasing use of ethanol is a bad idea. No more diversion of the food supply to fuel gas guzzling cars!
If Americans cared enough about whether those in Haiti, Latin America and elsewhere have edible corn, they would eliminate the use of ethanol. But that would take sacrifice. And we don't do sacrifice well. Hell, we don't even want to talk about sacrifice in a presidential election.
As oil rose to record highs again today, it's long past time to do something. We could all reduce our driving by about 20% or more. We can take the bus, or Metro or car pool. We can do one or two or more fewer errands. But who will? We can make our next car more fuel efficient than the one we have. Who will reject the Hummer, the Suburban, or the Expedition? Should the tax code carry loophole so that drivers of such trucks can write them off, or should there be a gas-guzzling penalty instead?
The governments new ruling for fuel efficiency to rise to 35 mpg by 2030 is twenty years late and probably trillions short.
We need some (many) good solutions now. Unfortunately, non of the candidates are adequately addressing this. And ethanol opposition notwithstanding, McCain is no solution (at all).