CAT | Politics
9
E-Flex: High-Blend Ethanol Fuel (Guest Post)
2 Comments | Posted by George in Environment, Politics
The following is a guest post by Jack. You can read his blog here. This post represents the views of the author and not necessarily the position of George of gimme-five.com. Thanks, Jack!
In another clear attempt to reduce our carbon footprint, Minister Jacinta Allan joined Caltex and GM Holden to publicize a distribution of fuel containing up to 85% ethanol across Caltex’s set of connections, including Victoria, by end of October, 2010. E-Flex, is Caltext’s ethanol based bio fuel that will hopefully cut carbon emissions down by 20% in 2020. The fuel, referred to as “home grown ” will ultimately improve Victoria’s fuel security. Ms Allan boldly states that it will also “stimulate investment in local supply.” The fuel itself has the ability to reduce carbon emissions up to 50%; this is in direct comparison to traditional fossil fuels.
The promotion of efforts like this, along with the implementation of green jobs, was all a part of Brumby Labor Government’s $175 million jobs for the Future Economy Action Plan.
Carbon Cutting projects like the example listed above provide greater sustainability. Accordingly, the introduction of ethanol based bio fuels are a step towards a more optimal supply of renewable energy. Ms Allan goes on to state that they’ll continue to work tirelessly to build a plant for high-tech ethanol production in Victoria.
Meanwhile, Doug Band and the Clinton Global Initiative continue to invest in similar sustainability projects, similar to the fleet emission reduction program in San Francisco Bay. The plan will effectively lower green house gas emissions from specific vehicle fleets of the county through fleet route optimization. In other words ESRI and the CGI are deemed responsible for developing software that will optimize fuel usage.
Both projects are a step in the right direction. With the development of things like PETE (photon enhanced thermionic emissions), and less expensive, more efficient alternative energy projects in place, the world will continue to become a more sustainable planet.
The following is a quote from Adam Smith (the economist) that I had never read before. It’s a very apt way of describing a vast majority of politicians and “political” people in the modern era. Though the quotation is quite libertarian, I think it applies just as precisely to Tea Partiers (who aren’t necessarily libertarian, but often portrayed that way) as it does to hard left Democrats.
The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.
For an interesting article applying this quotation, see this excellent article about a terrible proposed law.
A few minutes ago, I got a phone call from the Democratic party, asking for money. The conversation went something like this:
Caller: As you know, the new healthcare legislation passed. However, Sarah Palin and the Republicans, are saying extreme things about it to make everyone hate it. They’re calling it socialism instead of debating the facts. And they’re raising a lot of money to fight it. If you donate to us today, we’ll triplicate your donation.
Me: I’m sorry, I really do not want to donate.
Caller: But don’t you dislike what the Republican party is doing right now and what Sarah Palin is saying?
Me: Sure. I can’t stand Sarah Palin.
Caller: Don’t you see how important this is?
Me: I really don’t support major political parties. They’re too extreme for me.
Caller: Don’t you know that President Obama has been described by some as a centrist?
Me: Sorry, the reason I don’t donate is because I think political parties make issues too polarized in this country, not because of the characteristics of individual politicians. I’m sorry, I really do not support you.
Caller: OK, well maybe we’ll get you on board sometime in the future.
Me: Thanks, bye.
Since I’m a pretty passive person, I don’t like to say mean things to people on the phone, so obviously I did not do so with this conversation. But the conversation really exemplified what I do not like about political parties. The caller assumed that if I disliked the Republican Party’s extreme tactics, then I would surely prefer the Democratic Party, and seemed to be confused as to how I could dislike the Republican Party and not like the Democratic Party. In fact, the whole conversation was a bit of irony. The caller was accusing the Republicans of using improper debate tactics, but was essentially making a straw man argument by lumping all of the Republicans in with Sarah Palin and crazy people that use the word socialism instead of debating the facts. Sure, lots of Republican politicians did that, but it was certainly not everybody. And not all Republicans are as radically incompetent as Sarah Palin. I told him I don’t like political parties because they’re too extreme—I dislike political parties just as much for their straw man arguments as I do for their hyperbolic accusations.
File this under reason #492 why I dislike political parties.
The new healthcare legislation has apparently made some people so made that they’ve turned to threatening politicians with violence. Some citizens have also decided to battle it out amongst each other, including the driver who was so mad that he started a car—while driving—because it had an Obama-Biden sticker on it:
Duren had picked his daughter up from school and was driving to his Nashville, TN home when Harry Weisiger pulled up next to his car, pointed to the Obama-Biden bumper sticker on the back, and flipped him off . . . . At a stop sign he starting honking his horn and causing a scene and when the two were underway again, he hit Duran’s car. Being a normal person, Duren slowed to deal with the accident but Weisiger sped up and smashed into the bumper, causing serious damage.
My two cents: if someone is stupid enough to turn to violence about a political issue, they likely don’t have the intelligence to actually understand the political issue itself.
P.S. This is NOT an endorsement of the healthcare legislation, of which I have many doubts.
10
Old News Anew: The unintended ripples from the biomass subsidy program
0 Comments | Posted by George in Econ, Politics
It sounded like a good idea: Provide a little government money to convert wood shavings and plant waste into renewable energy.
But as laudable as that goal sounds, it could end up causing more economic damage than good — driving up the price of raw timber, undermining an industry that has long used sawdust and wood shavings to make affordable cabinetry, and highlighting the many challenges involved in decreasing the nation’s dependence on oil by using organic materials to create biofuels.
In a matter of months, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program — a small provision tucked into the 2008 farm bill — has mushroomed into a half-a-billion dollar subsidy that is funneling taxpayer dollars to sawmills and lumber wholesalers, encouraging them to sell their waste to be converted into high-tech biofuels. In doing so, it is shutting off the supply of cheap timber byproducts to the nation’s composite wood manufacturers, who make panels for home entertainment centers and kitchen cabinets.
This sounds a lot like the dumbest idea of 2009: “Cash for Clunkers.” First, find a process that is relatively efficient (say, using leftover wood to make useful products, or, selling used cars to people who need them). Next, make that process less efficient and more exciting (for instance, by taking the wood away from making useful products and instead using it in a relatively inefficient biomass-to-energy conversion, or, taking used cars and permanently immobilizing them so that no one will ever drive them again). In both cases the government increases the price of products people need (wood products, cars) but claims it is doing something “green” while improving the economy. Bogus.
