Liberals need to help save the planet for a change

This story gets to combine two of my least favorite things in life: pork and global warming hysteria. Observe:

The use of crop-based biofuels could speed up rather than slow down global warming by fueling the destruction of rainforests, scientists warned Saturday.

Once heralded as the answer to oil, biofuels have become increasingly controversial because of their impact on food prices and the amount of energy it takes to produce them.

They could also be responsible for pumping far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they could possibly save as a replacement for fossil fuels, according to a study released Saturday.

Whoops.

Now, we've all had this massive rush in Washington to subsidize corn based ethanol, mainly because they grow a lot of corn in Iowa and they happen to have a Presidential Caucus there. All of the Democratic pork producers love it, because they get to bolster their Presidential cred, make environmentalists happy, and get to say they are "protecting the family farm."

And remember: this 'aint our first rodeo with noting the dangers of biofuels.

One of the big problems that Republicans like myself have has little to do with the idea of using alternative fuels; exploring new ideas and innovation makes good sense. But our problem has been and continues to be this rush to judgment for the latest and greatest fad that will purportedly "save the environment" when, in fact, the science on that is unproven at best or shows that we are doing even more damage at worse.

Rushing to judgment means we all pay. And we are all paying dearly for rushing to judgment and pork barrell spending on envirofuels.

Next thing you know, we're going to be taking about perpetual motion engines as a national priority....

Cleaner Energy through more Lane-Miles?

This is the kinda thing that, if it works, is really cool:

Researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute have just done a batch of research that they hope will help turn the world's roads into cheap collectors of solar power.

They started with the assumption that asphalt gets frakking hot when the sun shines on it, and then started making some serious leaps.

First, they decided to figure out what part of the asphalt gets hottest, which turns out to be about two centimeters below the surface. Then they tried to figure out how to make it even hotter. The painted an anti-reflective coating to their test blocks, and then added highly thermally conductive quartzite to the mix.

The result is blacktop that gets even hotter and stays hotter for longer than regular asphalt. Of course, this left them with the problem of how to get the energy out of the road. By laying down a series of flexible and highly conductive copper pipes before pouring the asphalt they were able to pump water through the asphalt, picking up the heat, for use in power generation.

This is the kind of private sector innovation that needs to be encouraged. The private sector, working to harness the resources that we have, to address our power concerns. I love the idea.

Maybe we can get Paul Foer to be reasonable about supporting constructing more lane-miles yet...

The Cost of Ethanol Subsidies

I have noted on more than one occasion that the insistence on the use of corn-based ethanol as an alternative fuel is having serious impact on our economy, higher food costs, as well as a negative impact on our environment. Check out this video from Reason.tv which further discusses the role of ethanol and ethanol subsidies in our environmental degradation:



This is insistence on ethanol as an alternative fuel really needs to be reconsidered before we do further damage to the economy and to the environment...

The Green Dictatorship

Given the jones that Governor O'Malley and Annapolis Democrats has for the expansion of power in the name of the all things environment, I expect that this idea from Germany will be coming to a General Assembly near you:

This fairy-tale town is stuck in the middle of a utopian struggle over renewable energy. The town council’s decision to require solar-heating panels has thrown Marburg into a vehement debate over the boundaries of ecological good citizenship and led opponents to charge that their genteel town has turned into a “green dictatorship.”

The town council took the significant step in June of moving from merely encouraging citizens to install solar panels to making them an obligation. The ordinance, the first of its kind in Germany, will require solar panels not only on new buildings, which fewer people oppose, but also on existing homes that undergo renovations or get new heating systems or roof repairs.

To give the regulation teeth, a fine of 1,000 euros, about $1,500, awaits those who do not comply.

Read the whole thing.

This, of course, is completely appalling to anybody who believes in private property rights. Why should any government in any country force business owners and homeowners to install a technology that is inefficient and far from cost-effective? And all in the name of what? In the name of cleaner energy? In the name of global warming? Or, in actuality, is it really in the name of the expansion of government power?

This is the sort of thing that concerns me about the future of our state. We know many things about Governor O'Malley and Annapolis Democrats. They look for ways to diminish the property rights of Marylanders. They are committed to the religion of global warming. They are committed to the expansion of government powers. And they are committed to higher taxes, higher fees, and forcing taxpayers to spend money on unnecessary expenses.

If you think about it, this sort of thing is right up O'Malley's alley. And let's face it, we have seen this sort of thing before here in Maryland. After all, it was only just this year that the General Assembly narrowly averted destroying Maryland's economy by passing the Global Warming Solutions Act.

Whether or not Team O'Malley tries to implement the policy in place in Marburg, there is certainly an impetus not just here in Maryland but across the nation to impose a "Green Dictatorship" that severely restricts the freedom and the wallets of citizens and taxpayers alike. We must remain vigilant in order to protect our economy and protect our nation from this radical ideology.

Calling for Air Power

I have got to get me one of these:

Zero Pollution Motors (ZPM) confirmed to PopularMechanics.com on Thursday that it expects to produce the world's first air-powered car for the United States by late 2009 or early 2010. As the U.S. licensee for Luxembourg-based MDI, which developed the Air Car as a compression-based alternative to the internal combustion engine, ZPM has attained rights to build the first of several modular plants, which are likely to begin manufacturing in the Northeast and grow for regional production around the country, at a clip of up to 10,000 Air Cars per year.

And while ZPM is also licensed to build MDI's two-seater OneCAT economy model (the one headed for India) and three-seat MiniCAT (like a SmartForTwo without the gas), the New Paltz, N.Y., startup is aiming bigger: Company officials want to make the first air-powered car to hit U.S. roads a $17,800, 75-hp equivalent, six-seat modified version of MDI's CityCAT (pictured above) that, thanks to an even more radical engine, is said to travel as far as 1000 miles at up to 96 mph with each tiny fill-up.

75 horsepower isn't exactly going to get you to Daytona speeds, but at 1000 miles between fill-ups, it might just be worth it...

More Biofuel Worries

I've touched on this subject a few times before, but it still demands our undivided attention:

The world's rush to embrace biofuels is causing a spike in the price of corn and other crops and could worsen water shortages and force poor communities off their land, a U.N. official said Wednesday.

Speaking at a regional forum on bioenergy, Regan Suzuki of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization acknowledged that biofuels are better for the environment than fossil fuels and boost energy security for many countries.

However, she said those benefits must be weighed against the pitfalls - many of which are just now emerging as countries convert millions of acres to palm oil, sugar cane and other crops used to make biofuels.

Read the whole thing. Now the next paragraph illustrates a key point that Ms. Suzuki makes that I cannot reinforce enough:

"Biofuels have become a flash point through which a wide range of social and environmental issues are currently being played out in the media," Suzuki told delegates at the forum, sponsored by the U.N. and the Thai government.

Biofuels have become a sexy way for all parties involved to talk approvingly about alternative fuels. Folks on the environmental left can take about ways to create (theoretically) cleaner burning fuels that by continuing to use fossil fuels. And politicians get an easy way to pander to the farm vote by encouraging ethanol subsidies.

But as we continue to note, this continued reliance and glamorization of biofuels as the wave of the future is showing that it will have many drawbacks, and a lot of them will be harmful to the environment and harmful to the working poor, especially in developing nations trying to get ahead of the curve.

Foremost among the concerns is increased competition for agricultural land, which Suzuki warned has already caused a rise in corn prices in the United States and Mexico and could lead to food shortages in developing countries.

As usual, it's time that leaders from the around the world consider the consequences of "going green" before jumping headfirst into an empty pool. Let us hope that this rush to biofuels has not done any more damage to our ecology to our global economy, particularly in developing nations in Asia. I hate to repeat myself, but let's not kill the environment to save the environment.

O'Malleynomics

Governor O'Malley is going to release an energy plan as part of his legislative package, and once again it is going to be a case study in O'Malleynomics: spending lots of money to save less money;

Gov. Martin O'Malley's energy administration will release sweeping legislative and policy recommendations today that include new power-conservation laws, an estimated $100 million fund for environment-friendly initiatives and an emphasis on consumer responsibility for electricity consumption.

O'Malley, a Democrat who campaigned on the unfulfilled promise of undoing a 72 percent electricity rate increase for 1.2 million Baltimore Gas & Electric customers, appears likely to pursue an agenda in Annapolis that could further increase consumer costs in the short term. But administration officials say the proposals are needed to ensure long-term sustainability of Maryland's faltering power network and forestall the threat of blackouts as early as 2011.

Well, isn't that special? The Governor who railed against higher energy rates during his election campaign is going to propose legislation to....hike energy rates.

Of course, once again, the plan revolves around the idea not of generating new power sources, or making the business climate more appealing to energy companies, but tries to restrict the availability of power to consumers through forcible reductions in power usage and higher energy costs.

But just think about it for a second; passing tax credits to encourage the use of more efficient appliances. Carbon credit trading (even with the coming Federal Trade Commission investigation), with costs passed onto the consumer at the expense of more government revenues? New power-conservation laws? Does anybody for a second think that this is going to save power, reduce pollution, or do anything other than drive up the cost of living once again for Maryland's working and middle class families?

Of course, O'Malley's plan looks sensible compared to this lunacy:

Sean Dobson, the executive director of left-leaning Progressive Maryland, said lawmakers should give O'Malley's plan a chance to work.

"But if it turns out to be insufficient," he said, "the state should construct, own and operate its own ultra-efficient, clean-energy power plants and force utilities to pass along this electricity to consumers at a regulated, affordable rate."

I'm just glad that Dobson, in his role as head of Progressive Maryland, finally admits that Progressive Maryland is out to stick it to Maryland's working and middle class families.

The story in the Post has this gem:

Malcolm Woolf, the state's energy administrator, said that "we have ignored energy issues in the state" since the General Assembly agreed in 1999 to bring competition into the electricity market. He called the strategic plan an "opening salvo in a larger effort to take control of Maryland's energy's future."

He's right to a point; O'Malley did ignore the rate hikes he promised to stop and allowed the costs to be passed onto the consumer. But there are a couple of just odd statements in here (including the fact that competition was ever truly brought to the energy market). Can somebody explain to me what " larger effort to take control of Maryland's energy's future" entails? What does that mean? Are we talking about Dobson's Soviet style proposal? More regulation? Power cutoffs like they use to have in Romania? What other harebrained ideas could the administration possibly have up their sleeves as it relates to electricity?

O'Malley's energy plan is just another block in the giant game of Jenga known as O'Malleynomics. Using government in whatever means necessary in order to raise taxes, raise fees, and grow the size of government at the expense of Maryland's working and middle class families. while attempting to further control their behavior. If O'Malley was truly serious about reducing power consumption and improving the environment, there are alternative methods that produce greater long-term stability than carbon trading and by artificially inflating the price of power. And yes, that does mean unclogging the pipeline to allow for the construction of wind farms in Western Maryland, and the consideration of the construction of new nuclear power facilities.

Once again, O'Malley is putting politics ahead of people, and THAT friends may be the true keystone of O'Malleynomics.

"Progress" on Environment anything but

Good job team:

President Bush has signed a law requiring automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent. It also requires wider ethanol use.

Or not:

Because of rising demand for ethanol, American farmers are growing more corn than at any time since World War II. And sea life in the Gulf of Mexico is paying the price.

The nation's corn crop is fertilized with millions of pounds of nitrogen-based fertilizer. And when that nitrogen runs off fields in Corn Belt states, it makes its way to the Mississippi River and eventually pours into the Gulf, where it contributes to a growing "dead zone" — a 7,900-square-mile patch so depleted of oxygen that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate.

The dead zone was discovered in 1985 and has grown fairly steadily since then, forcing fishermen to venture farther and farther out to sea to find their catch. For decades, fertilizer has been considered the prime cause of the lifeless spot.

With demand for corn booming, some researchers fear the dead zone will expand rapidly, with devastating consequences.

"We might be coming close to a tipping point," said Matt Rota, director of the water resources program for the New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network, an environmental group. "The ecosystem might change or collapse as opposed to being just impacted."

And this ties in with the story I noted back in September where the demand for ethanol is killing rain forests in tropical climes.

Once again, it seems like political convenience took precedence over proven science. Nobody can possibly tell me that it is better for us to be growing more and more corn for ethanol use if it means creating a massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Sorry, that's "fixing" one problem (I'll get to that in a second) and creating one that is just as bad, and possibly even worse, in it's place.

And let's get back to the point of ethanol. Because guess what? There is no consensus that widespread use of ethanol (or other organic fuels) as a replacement for fossil fuels is a positive for the environment:

Energy outputs from ethanol produced using corn, switchgrass, and wood biomass were each less than the respective fossil energy inputs. The same was true for producing biodiesel using soybeans and sunflower, however, the energy cost for producing soybean biodiesel was only slightly negative compared with ethanol production. Findings in terms of energy outputs compared with the energy inputs were:

• Ethanol production using corn grain required 29% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced.
• Ethanol production using switchgrass required 50% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced.
  
• Ethanol production using wood biomass required 57% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced.
  
• Biodiesel production using soybean required 27% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced(Note, the energy yield from soy oil per hectare is far lower than the ethanol yield from corn).
• Biodiesel production using sunflower required 118% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced.

Of course, the study that I copied that from is from the notoriously anti-science , in the pocket of big business folks from.....the University of California-Berkeley. And Professor Tad Patzek, one of the authors of the aforementioned paper, is a major skeptic of biofuels to say the least (though in the interest of full disclosure, his bio notes that he worked for Shell back in the day).

Once again, Congress and the administration have teamed up to take "action" that does not necessarily accomplish any of the goals with they purportedly have aimed to achieve. By trying to increase ethanol production, they may have unwittingly caused the expansion and promulgation of a large environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and may be contributing to the increase, not decrease, of fossil fuel output due to the energy used to create biofuels.

We need to work on ways to create new alternative fuels whose use and production methods help us clean, not pollute, the environment. The rush of Washington to "do something" to fix the problems is merely meddling in areas that the politicians seem not to understand. By doing the wrong thing, this legislation merely proves that in all likelihood it will be the free market, not Washington, that will come through with the big breakthroughs that will continue to create a cleaner planet. As usual, Washington gives us a cure that could be worse than the disease...